• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

R. C. bishops: We'd rather see children suffer than acknowledge same-sex couples

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
Homosexuals can't procreate? Hmm, I've never heard of anything that biologically interferes with the reproductive organs' abilities to function simply because of sexual orientation. There some new data I'm not aware of? Because as far as I know, homosexual people's reproductive organs seem to function just like heterosexual people's. Does the same hindrance you speak of also interfere with bisexuals' ability to procreate? :sarcastic

Thart's interesting. I didn't realize semen being ejaculated into a rectum can now produce impregnation. Where do they carry the child for nine months? In the colon?
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
Thart's interesting. I didn't realize semen being ejaculated into a rectum can now produce impregnation. Where do they carry the child for nine months? In the colon?

Why do you have to be crude? You know full well that people can have prior relationships, or be bisexual, or get artificial insemination, or get surrogate mothers and so on and so forth. there are many ways available to procreate and have children. being homosexual doesn't stop that. And being heterosexual is no guarantee of being able to procreate. Sometimes hetero couples need help too you know. :rolleyes:


I notice you didn't respond to my previous post. Didn't care to try to tackle that one at all huh?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
What's right and wrong become a little clearer when you ask yourselves how you'd want to be treated if it were your own children that needed to be rasied by another couple due to some unforseen circumstance arising that made raising them yourself impossible. I gaurantee that the heterosexual people here would choose heterosexual parents for their children if given a choice between them and gays.
Adding more bull **** to the pile does not help.


"right" and "wrong" are nothing more than highly subjective terms used to justify the bias, prejudice and "ick factor" of those who use the words "right" and "wrong".
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Thart's interesting. I didn't realize semen being ejaculated into a rectum can now produce impregnation. Where do they carry the child for nine months? In the colon?
This post merely shows you are either to ignorant of the the topic at hand to have an honest discussion without holding your hand or you are merely being an arse.

Either way, you are not doing your credibility any favours.
 

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
Why do you have to be crude? You know full well that people can have prior relationships, or be bisexual, or get artificial insemination, or get surrogate mothers and so on and so forth. there are many ways available to procreate and have children. being homosexual doesn't stop that. And being heterosexual is no guarantee of being able to procreate. Sometimes hetero couples need help too you know. :rolleyes:


I notice you didn't respond to my previous post. Didn't care to try to tackle that one at all huh?

I thought my take on the subject was pretty clear. Nature's idea of procreating and by extension rearing is that it's a job for a man and a woman. Do you have any idea how much more likely a child is to become a criminal and/or addict when either the male or female component is missing? Granted, that's basically from studies done of children who are products of single parent homes whether it be through divorce or births out of wedlock. Since the phenomen of same sex partners parenting is relatively new, we're going to have to wait a few decades before significant numbers start rolling.
 
Last edited:

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
Adding more bull **** to the pile does not help.


"right" and "wrong" are nothing more than highly subjective terms used to justify the bias, prejudice and "ick factor" of those who use the words "right" and "wrong".

I'm sure that's exactly what you said the last time somebody treated you unfairly or in some other way you didn't appreciate.
 

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
"Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money. The charities have served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children.

The bishops have followed colleagues in Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts who had jettisoned their adoption services rather than comply with nondiscrimination laws."
source
I'm curious, do any Catholics here support this position?

I am curious as to why the church is doing that anyway?

In the uk, we have govt. departments for that.

I support the RC stance, because I don't think they should have anything to do with child welfare, it is open to abuse.
 

Drolefille

PolyPanGeekGirl
I thought my take on the subject was pretty clear. Nature's idea of procreating and by extension rearing is that it's a job for a man and a woman. Do you have any idea how much more likely a child is to become a criminal and/or addict when either the male or female component is missing? Granted, that's basically from studies done of children who are products of single parent homes whether it be through divorce or births out of wedlock. Since the phenomen of same sex partners parenting is relatively new, we're going to have to wait a few decades before significant numbers start rolling.
The data already exists and despite being informed about it, you've decided to ignore it. The proponents of Proposition 8 tried to make this same argument in court and for those of us who followed the trial it was hilarious to watch. Why? Because their only witness on the topic had to admit there was no harm caused to children by having them raised by same sex couples.

Medscape: Medscape Access
Same-sex couples can be effective parents, researchers find - USATODAY.com
"Children being raised by same-gender parents, on most all of the measures that we care about, self-esteem, school performance, social adjustment and so on, seem to be doing just fine and, in most cases, are statistically indistinguishable from kids raised by married moms and dads on these measures," Biblarz says.

Here's one where it says kids are at risk- because of the laws that are anti LGBT.
Children of Same-Sex Parents Harmed By Anti-gay Laws, Says Study - ABC News

Check out prop8trialtracker.com and go back through the liveblogs of the testimony on same-sex parenting if you're really interested in reading evidence as admitted and argued in court on the matter. The site is biased, but since the defense is arguing that the video shouldn't be released, transcripts are the best we can do.
 

Drolefille

PolyPanGeekGirl
I am curious as to why the church is doing that anyway?

In the uk, we have govt. departments for that.

I support the RC stance, because I don't think they should have anything to do with child welfare, it is open to abuse.
Many states have contracted adoption and other services out to organizations, typically if not exclusively non-profits in these cases. Catholic Charities has been providing them for a long time, but essentially they're paid an amount by the state to provide these services. In theory this is cheaper than having the state run their own although that can be argued and I don't have the numbers on it. It is at least cheaper in upfront costs as the state doesn't have to build the system itself.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The Catholic church has repeatedly proven it cares little for children. I'm not surprised by this.
I know firsthand that they do care.
But they also have some very ironic priestly problems.
The 2nd statement does not defeat the 1st.
 

tarasan

Well-Known Member
No, but in a secular environment the people with the responsibility to handle difficult situations with vulnerable people are expected to have relevant training and expertise.

not sure whats its like in the USA but in the UK all places that care for vulnerable people require training and expertise (and the ability to prove they have it)

They are expected to have an advanced understanding of child psychology and the credentials to back it up.

depending on the job some people dont need to know something as engrossing as child psychology although im sure some do.

Can a few perverts, abusers and child molesters slip through the cracks? Sure they can, but it takes real dedication and perseverance. Because of the enormous difficulty one must endure to gain access to children in a publicly accountable secular system, we are much more likely to find molesters and abusers in volunteer-driven clubs, sports and religious groups: Groups with a weak or non-existent vetting framework provide creeps with easy, unsupervised access to children.

in the UK you arnt considering all people who work with Kids here have to be vetted by the police, if you arnt vetted serious consequences can happen.

We should all face the fact that entrusting the welfare of vulnerable people to religious groups whose authorities have no qualifications at all for dealing with child development and psychological trauma was a TERRIBLE idea.

Im not quite sure you know how social services work....(at least in the Uk you seem to be make really general claims.)

One of humanity's worst ideas, IMO. Social services partnerships between state and church have delivered the world's most vulnerable people into the hands of the world's most dangerous predators for generations. It's about time somebody put a stop to it, and I'm glad it's the church taking the lead. Otherwise there would be a huge outcry from "persecuted" religious people over the loss of their social status.

hmmmm maybe this is just an American thing........... however you dont seem to understand all the red tap people need to get through, to work with the young and the elderly you also seem to be throwing all religions under one huge umbrella.

I am a support worker who works with vulnerable adults. This post seems to just scream ignorance to me.....
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
People can delude themselves all they want but comparing adoption rights between gays and civil rights for blacks is ridiculous. It only takes a little common sense to realize that children born of heterosexual sex need heterosexual parents if they're going to be as healthy as possible. The day gays figure out how to procreate I will demand that their offspring are raised strickly by gay parents. However, In a culture that worships sex like a god, demanding of such "rights" is inevitable

Thats absurd. It's very much the same rights. There is no evidence that gay parents are any worse then straight parents. It's a bunch of religious bogotry masquerading as "family values." It disgusts me.
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
I thought my take on the subject was pretty clear. Nature's idea of procreating and by extension rearing is that it's a job for a man and a woman. Do you have any idea how much more likely a child is to become a criminal and/or addict when either the male or female component is missing? Granted, that's basically from studies done of children who are products of single parent homes whether it be through divorce or births out of wedlock. Since the phenomen of same sex partners parenting is relatively new, we're going to have to wait a few decades before significant numbers start rolling.

These are some of the same arguments they made for interracial couples when interracial marriage was illegal. This whole idea of procreating is absurd when you realize that infertile couples can adopt children as well. Or maybe you think they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, seeing as how nature won't allow them to be parents. Again, this is religious bigotry masquerading as "family values."
 

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
Nice red herring.

Care to actually address the point made?

I'll phrase it another way. Your assertion that right and wrong is subjective is ************. If you can't even acknowledge that the "golden rule", which is based on treating others as yourself, has value and should be adhered to, then I'm at a loss for words.
 
Last edited:

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
These are some of the same arguments they made for interracial couples when interracial marriage was illegal. This whole idea of procreating is absurd when you realize that infertile couples can adopt children as well. Or maybe you think they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, seeing as how nature won't allow them to be parents. Again, this is religious bigotry masquerading as "family values."

Except interracial couples CAN procreate. Clearly nature doesn't have a problem with them parenting
 

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
Many states have contracted adoption and other services out to organizations, typically if not exclusively non-profits in these cases. Catholic Charities has been providing them for a long time, but essentially they're paid an amount by the state to provide these services. In theory this is cheaper than having the state run their own although that can be argued and I don't have the numbers on it. It is at least cheaper in upfront costs as the state doesn't have to build the system itself.

Cheers for the info.

I can't comment on the US method of providing adoption services, but I can say that it would not be appreciated in the UK. It would be seen as the State avoiding it's responsibility.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I'll phrase it another way. Your assertion that right and wrong is subjective is ************. If you can't even acknowledge that the "golden rule", which is based on treating others as yourself, has value and should be adhered to, then I'm at a loss for words.

Golden Rule: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."
So, what if I'm a masochist, does that mean it's right to beat you?

HERE'S an interesting web site that goes into the problems with the golden rule.
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
Except interracial couples CAN procreate. Clearly nature doesn't have a problem with them parenting

So can gay couples. They can procreate, just not with their partner, so obviously nature doesn't have a problem with them procreating either. However, what about infertile heterosexual couples? They can't procreate. Should we allow them to adopt chirldren even though nature had a different plan for them?
 
Top