We are all equall - ish!

[shaunbhoy]

Bollocks. This ruling says that we are all equal before the law: that the law is there to protect a basic human right, and so no-one is exempt from it.

We are all equal. Not all ideas are equal. The idea that sexual orientation is a personal choice is highly regarded. The idea that a divine revelation excuses one from recognising that is not.

Homosexuals don't HAVE the basic Human Right to have children naturally. That is not discrimination, unless you propose putting Mother Nature into the dock, it is an inescapable natural fact. We should not be bending the rules and tinkering with the accepted order of things in order to circumvent this IMHO.
Be that as it may however, that is not what the Church Leaders are asking for. They are not asking for some blanket ban, so I assume they are being relatively pragmatic about it. All they seem to be asking is that their rights to follow their consciences in placing children from their institutions be given the same credence as the rights of certain health professionals not to carry out abortions for the same faith rationale. Can't see too much wrong with that, except of course that it has upset the disproportionately influential gay lobby in this country, and we can't have that can we?

[Bagpuss]

If it's so wrong then why do these catholic priests keep abusing young boys?

Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse


Expulsion threat in secret documents

Read the 1962 Vatican document (PDF file)

Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
Sunday August 17, 2003
The Observer


The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...020400,00.html

[sasguru]

Bollocks. This ruling says that we are all equal before the law: that the law is there to protect a basic human right, and so no-one is exempt from it.

We are all equal. Not all ideas are equal. The idea that sexual orientation is a personal choice is highly regarded. The idea that a divine revelation excuses one from recognising that is not.

Agreed. And there is some evidence that sexual orientation is not a choice but a biological imperative. But SB is a little hard of thinking, so you have to forgive him ....

[Lucifer Box]

Homosexuals don't HAVE the basic Human Right to have children naturally. That is not discrimination, unless you propose putting Mother Nature into the dock, it is an inescapable natural fact. We should not be bending the rules and tinkering with the accepted order of things in order to circumvent this IMHO.

Like polio being a crippling disease? Small pox being fatal? Tut, tut. Mustn't try and circumvent the natural order.

Don't try and justify your bigotry with half-baked Chico-style "reasoning", just come out with it.

[The Lone Gunman]

I am going to have to side with SB here.
Gays and lesbians are incapable of having children in their own natural relationships. They demand the right to be accepted for what they are.
They then demand the right to be treated like a "normal" couple (please don't pick up on the normal it is a distraction). IMO they can not have it both ways.

A number of religions do no tbelieve that homosexuality is natural, they believe it to be a sin. They should not be forced to go against their beliefs.

I am not anti gay, those of you who have been around a while will know I went to a gay wedding last year. I am also not of a religious persuasion, my credentials are there in a number of threads.

[shaunbhoy]

If it's so wrong then why do these catholic priests keep abusing young boys?

Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse


Expulsion threat in secret documents

Read the 1962 Vatican document (PDF file)

Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
Sunday August 17, 2003
The Observer


The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...020400,00.html

I doubt anyone would disagree with the injustices of what some members of the Catholic Church may have done, but it has fook all to do with this debate, so the award for spinning off on an inconsequential tangent once again goes to Baggy. Well done jelly-head!

[Lucifer Box]

A number of religions do no tbelieve that homosexuality is natural, they believe it to be a sin. They should not be forced to go against their beliefs.

I have to disagree here. Laws full of exceptions and exemptions are poor laws. Following your reasoning legitimises, for instance, the treatment of women as second class citizens by one well known popular religion as to do otherwise would be forcing them to go against their beliefs.

I think the principle overrides the personal feeling in this matter.

[shaunbhoy]

Agreed. And there is some evidence that sexual orientation is not a choice but a biological imperative. But SB is a little hard of thinking, so you have to forgive him ....

Biological imperative or not, it is still an unnatural scenario to have 2 dads/2 mums, and is not something we should be encouraging at impressionable childrens' expense merely to pander to the Gay Lobby. This is simply another backward step by this government to undermine the traditional family unit, and those backing it on lofty but ultimately misguided moral principles should be ashamed of themselves.

[Bagpuss]

I doubt anyone would disagree with the injustices of what some members of the Catholic Church may have done, but it has fook all to do with this debate, so the award for spinning off on an inconsequential tangent once again goes to Baggy. Well done jelly-head!

It has everything to do with it. The Catholic Church is the last bastion of the sexually repressed homosexual. Often those who complain loudest are secretly envious, eh Shaun?

PS You seem to be confusing debate and abuse again. Maybe you were debated by a Priest?

[shaunbhoy]

Like polio being a crippling disease? Small pox being fatal? Tut, tut. Mustn't try and circumvent the natural order.

Don't try and justify your bigotry with half-baked Chico-style "reasoning", just come out with it.

Not the same thing at all. In treating diseases like those you listed we are simply returning unfortunate people back to the state they existed in prior to catching the disease. In riding a coach and horses through the rights of those with a strong faith simply because it does not fit in with the perceived rights of another minority with more influence is fundamentally flawed and unfair. Homosexuals cannot have children, get over it!