Catholics, Homosexuals, Discrimination & Adoption

[cjd]

I just can't get my head around the fact that people seem to be stating that discrimination is bad, but because the Catholc church has decreed that homosexuality is "wrong", then people should be allowed to follow "their" man-made law and not the law of the land.

I think that's because the people that are saying it believe that it is their god given (literally) right to discriminate against homosexuals. Hence the need for the law - to show them that they are wrong and, by the way, un-christian.

 

[Arhiann]

I think that's because the people that are saying it believe that it is their god given (literally) right to discriminate against homosexuals. Hence the need for the law - to show them that they are wrong and, by the way, un-christian.

Of course it's their god given right. God told them to do it. The law does anything but show them they are wrong though. All it will likely do is succeed in removing the Catholic adoption service from the equation.

 

[adam]

So basically, it's OK to discriminate then. (Or at least it's OK to discriminate if it's done by "nice", do-gooding people).

Ask a gay woman or man who wants to adopt a child if they feel it's OK.

No it is not okay to discriminate (maliciously) and I put that in as we need to be clear on what we mean by discriminat. Have I "discriminated" against a man because I fancy women (well one at a time normally but I am open to offers)? I have not selected him even for sexual consideration because he is a man.

I have by that definition DISCRIMINATED so clearly it is okay to discriminate as it was not malicious. Just on this occaision I decided I was looking for a woman to fulfil the role and not a man.

In the same way that a Catholic church (and I am not Catholic) should be able to select the person it sees fit for the adoption.

Afterall, the Church has bought together people with a similar belief and I think the government should stay out of it. Religion is a special area, it is not just made up recently and there are areas where government is best staying out of.

 

[Top Hat]

No it is not okay to discriminate (maliciously) and I put that in as we need to be clear on what we mean by discriminat. Have I "discriminated" against a man because I fancy women (well one at a time normally but I am open to offers)? I have not selected him even for sexual consideration because he is a man.

I have by that definition DISCRIMINATED so clearly it is okay to discriminate as it was not malicious. Just on this occaision I decided I was looking for a woman to fulfil the role and not a man.

In the same way that a Catholic church (and I am not Catholic) should be able to select the person it sees fit for the adoption.

Afterall, the Church has bought together people with a similar belief and I think the government should stay out of it. Religion is a special area, it is not just made up recently and there are areas where government is best staying out of.

Sorry Adam, to me that's a load of nonsense.

--------------------------------------------

Moving on
If the word 'black' was substituted for Homosexual we would all be rightly outraged.

 

[Arhiann]

If the word 'black' was substituted for Homosexual we would all be rightly outraged.

Colour of skin (and ethnicity and religion) are factors in assessing the suitability of adoptive circumstances. In those instances, discrimination is applied, and rightly so.

In the eyes of the Church, there is a big difference between black and being homosexual.

I would hazard a guess that life insurance companies will refuse to sell life insurance to an openly gay man if he refuses to take an HIV test, or possibly even if he does since there is likely a higher risk of contracting the disease.

Edit: Should have added for the hard of hearing that this is denying a product based on sexual orientation which is our old friend discrimination.

 

[cjd]

The Catholic church adoption service runs under state guidance and procedures - as do all other adoption agencies. It is not free to place children where it sees fit.

Currently, it manages to defy it's newly found 'conscience' by placing children with single gay people (presumably only those that are prepared to lie about their sex lives but who knows), divorced people and couples that practice contraception.

Funny old world.

 

[cjd]

I would hazard a guess that life insurance companies will refuse to sell life insurance to an openly gay man if he refuses to take an HIV test, or possibly even if he does since there is likely a higher risk of contracting the disease.

I would be prepared to take a small bet at this point.

 

[Arhiann]

Currently, it manages to defy it's newly found 'conscience' by placing children with single gay people (presumably only those that are prepared to lie about their sex lives but who knows),

You would have to say that if that can be proven then there's some double standards being applied here.

 

[cjd]

You would have to say that if that can be proven then there's some double standards being applied here.

You think?

(Didn't you think the enormous numbers of gay Catholic priests was a bit of a give away?)

 

[Arhiann]

The point being, can it be proven? And can it be proven it was done knowingly? I wasn't trying to state the obvious.

To be fair, employing gay priests isn't a requirement or qualifying factor of the Catholic Church, in the same way that employing paedophiles isn't a requirement of children's homes. It happens, but it isn't the fault of the Church.

Covering it up and denying it is though, there's no excuse for that.

 

[cjd]

Sure, it's not a matter of proof, it's Catholic adoption policy.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

On BBC's Newsnight last night, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Birmingham conceded that agencies controlled by the Church already place children with single gay people, but only in circumstances where it is in the best interests of the child.

[/FONT]

 

[Arhiann]

Sure, it's not a matter of proof, it's Catholic adoption policy.

Why are we even discussing this then? That's not just shooting yourself in the foot, it's attaching a small charge, and taking the whole thing clean off. It disproves their whole argument, lock, stock and barrel. I'm not going to point out that being single could be a transient state (oh, I just did didn't I).

I don't see a lot of point discussing it much further if that is truly the case. Your original post implied that the sexual orientation of the adopter may have been kept secret, hence the caveat I added.

 

I love this forum

 

[cjd]

No, you misunderstand what is happening here.

Both the government and the Catholic church were prepared to look the other way a bit on these issues - doing the right thing for the kids. The Catholics said - 'we will pretend that single gay people are not having sex because that way we can believe it's the sex act we care about (because people can choose to do that) not the sexual orientation of the individual (because we know that individuals can't choose that - despite the various twerps that say otherwise).

And the government could say 'you're doing a really good job finding homes for difficult to place children (which they are) so we'll pretend that you don't discriminate against gays'.

Unfortunately the stupid Catholic politicians chose to break that comfortable relationship when the new discrimination laws came up. This is because religion is now a political issue (Iraq, 911 etc) and the Catholics chose to take a line, banking on the fact that Blair is a christian, his wife a Catholic and certain prominant cabinet ministers are Catholic.

But they blew it - Blair's a spent force and the cabinet were too sensible to allow a pressure group to derail an important piece of anti-discrimatory legislation. Basically they lost and now look like the bigotted neanderthals they are.

If they'd left things to the real christians running the agencies, both the kids and their church would have come out of this looking a lot better than they do now.

Having lost the battle (the government have said they will not be exempted) I really hope the catholic political classes do the right thing for the kids but I suspect it's 50:50 whether they close their agencies.

 

[Cornish Steve]

umm - you seem to be missing a rather big part of this argument.

The government is already funding the Catholic adoption agencies. Hence their difficulty allowing them to discriminate.

OK - I take your point and stand corrected. Still, the government usually wastes no time in raising taxes anyway.

I think that's because the people that are saying it believe that it is their god given (literally) right to discriminate against homosexuals. Hence the need for the law - to show them that they are wrong and, by the way, un-christian.

Every human being deserves respect, basic human rights, and the opportunity to be loved; still, some practices have been viewed as wrong for many centuries, and it's wrong for government to expect people of faith to violate strongly held convictions. In fact, the government has no right to do so.

If the Catholic church is granted an exemption, gay couples are not being discriminated against by society as a whole because a big majority of adoption agencies will place children with them. This demonstrates tolerance by society without demanding acceptance by all. What's wrong with such a compromise? Officialdom goes out of its way not to upset some religious groups (e.g., the flap over "Three Little Pigs"), so why is it going out of its way to deliberately upset religious groups this time? Why the double standard?

Colour of skin (and ethnicity and religion) are factors in assessing the suitability of adoptive circumstances. In those instances, discrimination is applied, and rightly so.

I disagree on this point. Did you ever watch the movie "Gandhi"? On one occasion, a Hindu murdered a Muslim. Gandhi directed the Hindu to adopt the child - and to raise him a Muslim. What a wise approach! How better can we learn to understand and appreciate other beliefs by being forced to raise a child in one. Why propagate our differences by placing children with adoptive parents of the same ethnicity, for example?

 

[cjd]

still, some practices have been viewed as wrong for many centuries, and it's wrong for government to expect people of faith to violate strongly held convictions. In fact, the government has no right to do so.

Yes and those practices that have been viewed as wrong for centuries and actually are wrong, like discrimination, have been legislated against despite daft minority views. How many times is it necessary to say that this is a liberal, equal opportunities law that any real christian would support wholeheartedly.

The government has not only the right but also the absolute duty to bring in laws to prevent individuals and organisations harming society. 'People of faith' are subject to civil law - they are not above it because they have a delusion that god talks to them.

If the Catholic church is granted an exemption, gay couples are not being discriminated against by society as a whole because a big majority of adoption agencies will place children with them.

That is correct, gay people are not being discriminated against by society as a whole, just by bigots. Why should only Catholics bigots be allowed to discriminate?

How better can we learn to understand and appreciate other beliefs by being forced to raise a child in one. Why propagate our differences by placing children with adoptive parents of the same ethnicity, for example?

Well, now you're talking some sense. Try applying this logic to Catholics and homosexuals and 'people of faith' may get out of the dark ages yet. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[dagr]

...
In the eyes of the Church, there is a big difference between black and being homosexual.
...

Yes there is, and was. A few hundred years ago, blacks (and many other non-whites) were not even considered fully human by the Catholic church, while homosexual acts by the hierarchy were not totally uncommon. The word "discrimination" seems risible. How things have changed.

I say this to show that what's "right" one day is not the next, it's just the timing that's different, the established church tending to be a generation or two behind society. Don't forget that not so long ago in this country it was unthinkable by society and church for a single, unmarried mum to bring up or even see her own child. Times change.

 

[Arhiann]

I disagree on this point. Did you ever watch the movie "Gandhi"? On one occasion, a Hindu murdered a Muslim. Gandhi directed the Hindu to adopt the child - and to raise him a Muslim. What a wise approach! How better can we learn to understand and appreciate other beliefs by being forced to raise a child in one. Why propagate our differences by placing children with adoptive parents of the same ethnicity, for example?

There's a bit of a difference there though. One is journey of penance and understanding, the other option is to raise children in a faith or way that wouldn't equate with their ethnicity. They are two completely different cases and what you're espousing isn't good for the child.

You're a muslim, I give you a white child from ostensible Christian parents, and tell you to raise him as a Christian. Not going to happen is it.

I shoud have added that if you take religion out of the equation, there isn't a problem at all.

 

[Chris H]

Discrimination already exists, it's even governnment policy. I can speak for fostering where if you are a single gay, sexually active man you would not be offered a yoing male child for placement. As a white man I would be unlikely to be offered a black or asian placement and as a christian I would be unlikely to be offered a muslim placement. Although these policies are not set in stone and are waived in exceptional circumstances.

The Catholic agencies deal with a huge share of the most 'difficult' children. I'm certain that they do it a lot more efficiently and cheaply than any government department or agency could do. Once you get to see the cost of placing children in care then any situation where a major provider of care is removed from the market is deeply worrying.

 

[Arhiann]

Yes there is, and was. A few hundred years ago, blacks (and many other non-whites) were not even considered fully human by the Catholic church, while homosexual acts by the hierarchy were not totally uncommon. The word "discrimination" seems risible. How things have changed.

I have to say I'm no expert on Catholicism, but I do know that there were black Catholics in the 15th and 16th centuries. There may have been some earlier, I don't know.

 

[Arhiann]

Discrimination already exists, it's even governnment policy. I can speak for fostering where if you are a single gay, sexually active man you would not be offered a yoing male child for placement. As a white man I would be unlikely to be offered a black or asian placement and as a christian I would be unlikely to be offered a muslim placement. Although these policies are not set in stone and are waived in exceptional circumstances.

I'm with you here. I'm not a foster carer, but my aunt has been for 10 years. In actual fact, she looked after my first daughter when my wife was perceived to be a risk because she ended up with pretty bad PND. I can thoroughly recommend having a foster carer in the family when something like that happens

It seems to me that the standards required for adoption should be lowered a little. At the moment it seems to me that the slightest sign of an opinion on anything contentious will rule you out. Variety is a good thing, and whilst parents obviously have an influence on their children, they don't turn out as clones.

 

[cjd]

The Catholic agencies deal with a huge share of the most 'difficult' children. I'm certain that they do it a lot more efficiently and cheaply than any government department or agency could do. Once you get to see the cost of placing children in care then any situation where a major provider of care is removed from the market is deeply worrying.

By all accounts they do a great job and the volunteers on the ground are real saints.

In comparison their politically motivated masters - the bishops - look like idiots. If they close their centres over something that can easily be dealt with by simple local procedures they'll do great harm to those they are supposed to have a vocation to protect.

I started this thread feeling some sympathy for the Catholics but it's now very clear that their position on this is not to do the best for the kids but to defend their political position of being above the law.

If they close their agencies over this; the public will see them for the hypocrites they are.

 

[Arhiann]

Don't forget that not so long ago in this country it was unthinkable by society and church for a single, unmarried mum to bring up or even see her own child. Times change.

And in other countries too. I have a half sister in Australia I found about around 6 months ago as a result of my mother's unmarried pregnancy. That said though (and this is another thread entirely), don't you think that the erosion of the family unit has contributed to a general decline in society. I would say this is this case in the UK in particular.

Whenever I go to a country that has a strong family ethic, it's completely different. That's not to say that single mothering need be bad, some do a fantastic job, but statistics indicate that the odds are stacked against you.

 

[Arhiann]

If they close their agencies over this; the public will see them for the hypocrites they are.

I doubt it. I think you underestimate the attitudes of the public towards homosexuality.

 

[dagr]

And in other countries too. I have a half sister in Australia I found about around 6 months ago as a result of my mother's unmarried pregnancy. That said though (and this is another thread entirely), don't you think that the erosion of the family unit has contributed to a general decline in society. I would say this is this case in the UK in particular.

Whenever I go to a country that has a strong family ethic, it's completely different. That's not to say that single mothering need be bad, some do a fantastic job, but statistics indicate that the odds are stacked against you.

I'm not sure if the "decline" (not sure what that is, but I see what you mean) is due to family breakdown or if it is a consequence. Obviously, the vast majority of single parents do not choose to raise kids on their own, and I believe many studies have shown that, statistically, kids from single parent families do less well than kids raised with two parents (just as kids brought up in care do even less well). There was an interesting study, however, that showed (I believe, I'll have to check) how kids from single parent families where the single parent was widowed did nearly as good, statistically, as that of two parent families, whereas kids from "break-up" families with a single parent did significantly less well.

 

[Arhiann]

I'm not sure if the "decline" (not sure what that is, but I see what you mean) is due to family breakdown or if it is a consequence.

Decline was the best word I could think of. A consequence of what?

You have to say, religion in this respect is far from a bad thing since it enourages the family unit. Anyway, best leave it on topic.

 

[Ozzy]

I'm not sure if the "decline" (not sure what that is, but I see what you mean) is due to family breakdown or if it is a consequence. Obviously, the vast majority of single parents do not choose to raise kids on their own, and I believe many studies have shown that, statistically, kids from single parent families do less well than kids raised with two parents (just as kids brought up in care do even less well). There was an interesting study, however, that showed (I believe, I'll have to check) how kids from single parent families where the single parent was widowed did nearly as good, statistically, as that of two parent families, whereas kids from "break-up" families with a single parent did significantly less well.

I have to comment on this one personally.
I was brought up through what would be considered a very bad upbringing and two divorces. My mum for the latter part of my childhood was a single mum.
I have grown up with a strong believe in the power of a family unit and have a strong desire to remain true to my wife (and children) till my dying day. This is shared by my wife who was brought up with a very close family where her parents have been married for over 30 years (until her mum died 3 weeks ago).
This goes back to the values enstilled into the child and the way they are brought up by their parents, a pertinent point in this discussion. Of course, we sytill cant get away from society which I also suffered as I stood out from the norm due to my home life.

 

[leemason]

This is obviously a very contentious thread and is getting VERY large. Surely the Catholic Church is directly to blame for a large number of unwanted children who end up in the adoption system anyway with their rules against contraception and abortion.

 

[Arhiann]

This goes back to the values enstilled into the child and the way they are brought up by their parents, a pertinent point in this discussion. Of course, we sytill cant get away from society which I also suffered as I stood out from the norm due to my home life.

I disagree. I think it's a personal decision, not the way you are brought up. From my perspective, I was part of a family, but it didn't work. I have pretty bad experiences of the family unit, yet I believe firmly in it.

I don't bear either of my parents any malice. They weren't perfect, but who is. They did their best and that's all I can ask of them. But equally this in one of the reasons that I keep banging on about the "best" choice for the child. I don't believe that homosexual parenting (either single or a couple) is necessarily a good thing and we don't know enough to confirm one way or the other.I also don't believe that single parenting (straight) is an ideal choice though sometimes circumstances dictate it has to be for a natural parent.

We have to give adoptees the best chance statistically, ostensibly that we can. I think that's in a family with a loving mother and father and not two of each, or one of each. I guess that there are times when it may be deemed that an unusual parenting arrangement is a good idea, but I think that's a fault of the adoption service as I've mentioned earlier.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On one occasion, a Hindu murdered a Muslim. Gandhi directed the Hindu to adopt the child - and to raise him a Muslim. What a wise approach! How better can we learn to understand and appreciate other beliefs by being forced to raise a child in one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So Gandhi told the Hindu to raise the child according to the faith that the child would have been raised with had the father lived. Isn't that what current adoption policies try to ensure? If we follow Gandhi's example (which you seem to be advocating), then the most efficient way of doing this would be to continue with the current policy of placing children with adopters of like ethnicity.

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why propagate our differences by placing children with adoptive parents of the same ethnicity, for example?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maybe this is what most adopters want. If you try to place a black baby with a white couple, for example, or vice-versa, they might not (probably not?) bother adopting the baby. This means that you would be increasing the supply of children available for adoption, which is counter-productive.

However, if for some reason a couple of would-be adopters want to adopt a child with a different ethnicity to themselves, then I cannot think of any serious obstacle which should prevent them from doing so. One of my best friends at school was black, and he was adopted by a white family. Most of the time he seemed very happy and content with the situation, but I did sense a little discomfort when we found out. From then on, every now and again, it seemed as if he was thinking about what we thought about it. But anyway, nothing serious. He was obviously far better off than being in state care.

Dave

 

[Cornish Steve]

Yes and those practices that have been viewed as wrong for centuries and actually are wrong,

Wow. You're in fighting form today. In fact, you've assumed the right to define right and wrong again, despite centuries of human history, well-established traditions, and more. Even if a majority suddenly believes something is right, it doesn't make it so.

How many times is it necessary to say that this is a liberal, equal opportunities law that any real christian would support wholeheartedly.

Now you're redefining terms. I can read the new entry in the OED now: "Christian: a nice person who always does and agrees with what you say or think, who never rocks the boat, and is an all-round nice guy with no opinions". Come on now! Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others accept codes of conduct that have been in place for centuries and that are the basis of Western and other societies. Are we now so enlightened that majority opinion (manipulated of course by government and other establishment figures) is always right and people of faith are all bigots from the Dark Ages?

'People of faith' are subject to civil law - they are not above it because they have a delusion that god talks to them.

I am rigorous about obeying the law. If there's any doubt about paying taxes, for example, I'll always err on the side of paying too much. If a law is passed that violates my faith or my conscience, however, I'd forfeit my freedom before obeying it. This is why parents in Germany are in jail for home-schooling their children, for example, and I applaud them and would do the same. In everyday life, I do not discriminate - far from it. In fact, my company's mission statement is focused on those against whom society discriminates. Within my church, though, the leaders will gently counsel those who practice behaviours that our faith deems wrong. We're not going to change, and no law on earth will cause us to change.

That is correct, gay people are not being discriminated against by society as a whole, just by bigots.

So if anyone disagrees with the government, they're a bigot? If anyone disagrees with majority (mob) rule, they're a bigot? If someone has the guts to follow their conscience and their principles, they're a bigot? Based on these definitions, I'm a bigot. One thing I cannot be accused of, though, is being a bigot for discrimination. We've raised a lot of eyebrows because of who we invite into our home sometimes. So be it.

Well, now you're talking some sense. Try applying this logic to Catholics and homosexuals and 'people of faith' may get out of the dark ages yet. I'm not holding my breath.

How society has changed in the last two decades. Ironically, how intolerant we have become in the name of tolerance. Who will be left to challenge the legalisation of just about any practice so long as "it affects no one else" and "it's what the majority wants"? Who will stand up for traditional values that allowed us to lead the world in many ways for centuries, so that the government can't dismantle them almost on a whim? Soon, values won't mean a thing. We'll just be forced to conform to the latest government philosophy of life. But since we're all supposedly the result of evolutionary processes converting blobs into human beings, who cares? Meaningless intelligence on some spec of cosmic dust self-destructs and is greeted by deafening silence.

 

[cjd]

Hyperbole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Definition

Largely synonymous with exaggeration and overstatement, hyperbole (pronounced /haɪˈpɝbəli/ or "hy-PER-buh-lee" and NOT hyper-bowl) is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated or extravagant. It may be used due to strong feelings.

Bigotry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. The origin of the word bigot in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite", especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

 

[Chris H]

Maybe this is what most adopters want. If you try to place a black baby with a white couple, for example, or vice-versa, they might not (probably not?) bother adopting the baby. This means that you would be increasing the supply of children available for adoption, which is counter-productive.

However, if for some reason a couple of would-be adopters want to adopt a child with a different ethnicity to themselves, then I cannot think of any serious obstacle which should prevent them from doing so. One of my best friends at school was black, and he was adopted by a white family. Most of the time he seemed very happy and content with the situation, but I did sense a little discomfort when we found out. From then on, every now and again, it seemed as if he was thinking about what we thought about it. But anyway, nothing serious. He was obviously far better off than being in state care.

Dave

Dave, what you wrote reminds me of the Blue Mink song 'Melting Pot'!

When I was doing the training to be a foster carer I was told emphatically that unless there were over-riding circumstances, that as a white person I could never have the knowledge of dietary, skin care and health concerns together with an understanding of black identity and culture to foster a black child. Goes against everything I felt inside but later came to realise that this is the outworkings of a muliculturist ideology. Cultural integration isn't on the agenda.

Then when were approved as carers we were offered a placement of a child that had HIV who happened to be black, much to the chagrin of the political commissars! It never worked out though as the authorities decided that the distance was too far to maintain the contact with the mother.

But when all is said there are so many people in the social system that really do have the interests of the child at heart.

 

[Rob Holmes]

I think this threads getting a little close to the 'getting too personal' mark.

Can we keep it constructive guys and gals please.

Cheers,

Rob

 

[Arhiann]

I think this threads getting a little close to the 'getting too personal' mark.

Can we keep it constructive guys and gals please.

Cheers,

Rob

It did that a long time. You've obviously not read it all.

Individuals have been accused of being homophobes and bigots since very early. Why step in now.

 

[Rob Holmes]

It did that a long time. You've obviously not read it all.

Individuals have been accused of being homophobes and bigots since very early. Why step in now.

Good question...

It's the 'time out' forums and the time out forums are more lightly moderated but even so, sometimes we have to call 'time out' in time out

Rob

 

[Annushka]

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.

Hi, Hedgehog,
Just to clarify your 'throw away' comment. Bible actually says that the Christian should obey government law until it breaks God's divine law and according to the Bible this government is breaking God's divine law by allowing this law through and allowing same sex marriages, etc. Now, this is not my words, but this is what the Bible says: the Bible says that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman, or a woman to lie with a woman as with a man (Book of Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 - this is Old Testament). We are told in the New testament that those who practice homosexuality will not enter the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9,10). The apostle Paul shows homosexuality as a final order of rebellion against God. When people exchange the truth of God for a lie, and begin to worship the creature instead of the Creator, they are given up to evil. From Biblical standpoint the rise of homosexuality is a sign that a society is in the last stages of decay.

In regards to obeying the government - we are not called to blindly obey the government. In the New Testament Church the apostles refused to obey an order not to preach and teach in Jesus' name (Acts 5:27-29) Don't we have plenty of examples in the history where governments were out of order? What about Hitler? Stalin? and there is much more.

And another throw away comment -
If it is natural for 2 men or 2 women to have sex with each other, than why does the reproductive part of them not working? If it's meant to be - then they should have no problem with conceiving a child naturally?

 

[Annushka]

Sorry, Rob,

I just noticed your time out note after I have posted.
Anna

 

[Arhiann]

You haven't written anything wrong Anna, don't fret.

Incidentally the word "abomination" is questionnable. It changes depending n the translation, but I don't think there's any doubt the Bible states that it is wrong.

 

[Cornish Steve]

If it is natural for 2 men or 2 women to have sex with each other, than why does the reproductive part of them not working? If it's meant to be - then they should have no problem with conceiving a child naturally?

This is why the biggest proponents of cloning are the gay rights movement. I can understand their perspective, although a cloned child would not be the same as a conceived child because there's not the blending of personalities - which is one of the fun parts of being a parent: "So where did he get that from?"

I do want to reiterate that it's desperately unfair to discriminate against anyone in society. In my opinion, gay partners deserve the same tax breaks and the same welfare benefits as any other union. My only gripe is that the government is forcing churches to violate their long-held principles and to expect individuals to violate their conscience. There's no question this is wrong. When a government starts forcing us to believe what it believes, watch out.