Gay marriage

[Maguire01]

It is obvious that I will not convince some people that hetro couples are more naturally suited to raising children that gay couples. Like wise I will not be swayed..

I could be swayed... if you/anyone could provide any convincing/reliable evidence (not opinion) that it would be detrimental to the children.

[ludermor]

this thread cracks me up

just for the non PC Brigade, are you aware that the whole idea that a "family" as you define it, i.e. parents of opposite sex and their kids only became a viable entity in the late 16th century? and actually only became commonplace 150 years later? The raising of children before that was done by an extended circle including extended family and neighbors and various other "elders" in the community...

If God wanted two men to have children surely he would have equipped them with the bits and pieces to get the job done without the need for a woman?

Are you f'king kidding me?  I have to say I was respecting your position, although strongly disagreeing with it until this came along. Thats not an argument that's just lazy.

Did God (god?) not make creature which are asexual?

[Shamrock Shore]

I'm all for it

[J70]

What has failed?

your education and "thought" process

Must you bring it down to the level of personal insult on such a serious matter

It is obvious that I will not convince some people that hetro couples are more naturally suited to raising children that gay couples. Like wise I will not be swayed..

But you haven't tried to convince anyone.

[Evil Genius]

Statistically, it is very likely that some of the posters on this Board have a gay/bisexual parent, whether they (posters) know it or not.

Conceivably* some may have two.


* - Pun intended 

[ludermor]

I'm all for it

Kathleen is the spit of Podge.

[Puckoon]

Iceman - let's put this part to bed right away. Your rights are not being impacted. You have choices. You may not like them, they may be more expensive, or more hassle than you currently deal with but you have choices. You can choose not to use or buy abortive medication or contraception. You can choose to not pay into a health insurance scheme which covers these abominations. Again - you have choices. Gay couples under your rules would not. That is where their rights are being denied. Something which you cannot claim without your tounge firmly in your cheek. You have the right to religious freedom - nothing is denied to you on the basis of this freedom. You may suffer the courage of your convictions but there is nothing available to me that is not available to you. There are certain things unavailable to homosexuals in the world you, EC, fitzroy etc would want us to continue to live in. It is unfair, it is unjust and you've some feckin' sprouts on you to be complaining you are living in world where your rights are being taken away from you. Again - you have choices.

By the way - the Illinois diocese which was 'forced to close'... They had a state budget of $7.5 million a year, and chose to close rather than face an ugly situation in which they would be breaking the law by not offering Catholic adoptive and foster servies to homoseuxual couples. The had a choice too...

Didn't jesus say "come onto me little children"? What do you think Jesus would make of your stance? (genuine question) Personally I think he'd be all for children being in loving homes. Especially as he was asexual.

[Puckoon]

Is anyone on this board allowed to have an opinion without the PC brigade climbing all over them. EC etc have stated opinions and have not claimed them to be fact. Deal with it people, you can't browbeat everyone into submission.

But they can effectively browbeat the homosexuals into second class citizenship, because of opinons like this. Lame arugment Tony...
I'd replied to your post earlier yesterday before the thread got locked where you rightfully accused me of being in America too long. You may unfortunatly be onto something with that observation. I'd never knowingly met a gay person before I came here (that I knew of at least), and having worked with them, shared holidays and parties and watched our children grow up together - I cannot fathom the thought of some of these opinons. I could "deal with it" if there was so much as even a thread of evidence (even anecdotal as I've said), something, anything which pointed to their unsuitability as parents. As it is I have bucketloads of interactions with gay parents daily. I have a gay cousin, I have a gay sister in law and her wife with a child. I have 2 gay co-workers - both with children (biological). They are no different than any of the rest of us. No different than raising a child in a vegan household, or a Jewish one. To hear people talking about this being an unnecessary 'experiment' and 'long may it continue that these people do not have the right to raise a child' is disgusting. Judgement based on ignorance is a shame - that's as mildly as I'd put it.

[Doogie Browser]

There is a degree of bullying on this thread, subtle as it may be.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how ridiculous others consider it to be.  It is the joy of anonymous posting FFS.

[The Iceman]

Iceman - let's put this part to bed right away. Your rights are not being impacted. You have choices. You may not like them, they may be more expensive, or more hassle than you currently deal with but you have choices. You can choose not to use or buy abortive medication or contraception. You can choose to not pay into a health insurance scheme which covers these abominations. Again - you have choices. Gay couples under your rules would not. That is where their rights are being denied. Something which you cannot claim without your tounge firmly in your cheek. You have the right to religious freedom - nothing is denied to you on the basis of this freedom. You may suffer the courage of your convictions but there is nothing available to me that is not available to you. There are certain things unavailable to homosexuals in the world you, EC, fitzroy etc would want us to continue to live in. It is unfair, it is unjust and you've some feckin' sprouts on you to be complaining you are living in world where your rights are being taken away from you. Again - you have choices.

By the way - the Illinois diocese which was 'forced to close'... They had a state budget of $7.5 million a year, and chose to close rather than face an ugly situation in which they would be breaking the law by not offering Catholic adoptive and foster servies to homoseuxual couples. The had a choice too...

Didn't jesus say "come onto me little children"? What do you think Jesus would make of your stance? (genuine question) Personally I think he'd be all for children being in loving homes. Especially as he was asexual.

Finally a post without personal insults.....

My rights are being impacted Puck (IMO) if I am being forced into a situation that compromises my religious beliefs. Yes, i have choices, but like you indicated those choices would bear a huge financial impact on my family, one that we couldn't survive.
The Illinois Diocese is only one affected by all of this and I listed some examples as far back as 2007 in England when Catholic Charities were being forced to go against their religious beliefs. Yes, they had a choice, but withdrawing from providing adoption service to over 4000 families per year isn't the best of options, in my book.

I understand what you might perceive about my beliefs and opinions. Some of what I say oftentimes does come across as very fundamentalist. A lot of these are based on my personal beliefs and convictions. My faith defines me as a person, a father and a husband. Protecting the institution of marriage and protecting all life is a living out of those convictions. Who would I be if I didn't fight for or stand up for what I believe in?

I believe homosexuals have a choice. There are lots of organizations and institutions that allow them to adopt. I said numerous times I don't agree with it but I have not denied that some homosexual parents could provide adequate love and care for children. I don't believe that as a result of the pressures of homosexual groups, that religious organizations should be forced to go against their beliefs and facilitate gay adoptions. The Church, Church organizations and people who would call themselves Christians should not bend the principles of God's word to suit minority groups.

Jesus didn't speak directly on any of this unfortunately. He left behind an advocate however (the Holy Spirit) and the Church to pass on His teachings. In many of the letters there are very clear points on homosexuality. The difficulty in engaging in any conversation (from my perspective) is that the majority of posters here completely dismiss God, the Bible and the Church. If my arguments are based on any of this, then I never have a credible point in the eyes of others.

[Maguire01]

There is a degree of bullying on this thread, subtle as it may be.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how ridiculous others consider it to be.  It is the joy of anonymous posting FFS.

And everyone is entitled to challenge those opinions. And if someone wants to engage in debate, they have to be prepared for the possibility that flaws in the basis of their opinion might be exposed. We're all big boys and girls.

[Doogie Browser]

There is a degree of bullying on this thread, subtle as it may be.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how ridiculous others consider it to be.  It is the joy of anonymous posting FFS.

And everyone is entitled to challenge those opinions. And if someone wants to engage in debate, they have to be prepared for the possibility that flaws in the basis of their opinion might be exposed. We're all big boys and girls.

100% true, but browbeating does not constitute debate IMO.

[seafoid]

How come there are so many adoptions in the US anyway ?
France has something like 300 a year. Ireland has a handful. People in Western Europe have
given up on handing away their babies. It's not the end of the world if a young women has an
unplanned pregnancy and wants to keep her baby. Papa don't preach but is that still the case in the US ?

I think the whole christian fundi focus on sex is nuts. What about the environment dudes?

[Maguire01]

Finally a post without personal insults.....

No need to play the victim - the vast majority of posts have been free from personal insults.

Some of what I say oftentimes does come across as very fundamentalist.

That's because it is.

The difficulty in engaging in any conversation (from my perspective) is that the majority of posters here completely dismiss God, the Bible and the Church. If my arguments are based on any of this, then I never have a credible point in the eyes of others.

That's true. If you base your arguments on matters of faith rather than reality/evidence, it's a bit difficult to have a logical debate.

[Puckoon]

Ive to do this in parts - my computer is acting up and keeps scrolling to the top of my posts when I type more than 5 lines (wahey! I hear you say, now if we could only get EG's computer infected the same way ).

Yes, they had a choice, but withdrawing from providing adoption service to over 4000 families per year isn't the best of options, in my book.

Are you saying they made a bad choice? I think they did too.

Protecting the institution of marriage and protecting all life is a living out of those convictions.

Once the governments of all countries where civil marriage is acceptable allowed for marriage to come out of the church the "institution of marriage" was always going to be subject to change and modification based on the needs and wants of the populations. If marriage had continued to be a solely religious sacrament - then many arguments and tears could have been avoided. Of course it would mean people who didnt belong to a church couldn't be married. The instituion is no longer what it once was.