Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

The answer is, God has no need for anyone to define universal truths for him. The problem with the phrase 'universal truth' is that it implies the existence of some impersonal, universal law to which everything (God included) is subject. However that's not possible in Christian theology, because God is absolute and is subject to nobody, and nothing, except his own nature.

There was a time before anyone or anything else existed, when there was only God. He was the sum total of all that there was. He was perfect and complete in himself, expressing perfect love, hope and compassion within himself, the Thought, the Word and the Deed (Father, Son and Spirit) one to another. After he created the universe he determined that the laws that govern morality in that universe should be derived from his own nature. Prior to that there had been no law as such, just the perfect nature of God. Only in the creation of other beings was the nature of God translated into law and morals.

And now my brains are falling out. I need a cup of tea. :spin:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Ramblings or not, the intent is there, by a high profile activist. And even this one single interview poses more credible than anything to show the opposite, because the evidence for the opposite currently appears to be non existent.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

But that's exactly what morals *are*!!

Morals are nothing more than chunks of "tribal ethos" which have been around for so long that some people blindly accept them as "absolute truth" and cannot or will not look beyond them.

How long ago was it that being gay was "immoral"? What about sex outside marriage? Or how about single parenthood? All of these have been decried as "immoral" in the past but opinions(!) have changed now.

Yes, I would try to intervene or do something in those cases, but that's not down to "morals".

Didn't someone just complain that *I* was being "insulting"...?

Would you mind explaining the logic behind that conclusion? How can something that *doesn't* affect others end up "eventually" affecting others? ::confused:

But that's all that gays (in this case) want to do. They want to have the right to exercise *choice* over how they live their lives like everyone else!

What is your problem with that? Nobody's asking you to do it.

But "Socially unacceptable" and "morally wrong" are only *OPINIONS*!

It was considered "socially unacceptable" (and very probably "morally wrong") for Amelia Bloomer to wear trousers instead of a skirt and doing so got her arrested. Now, however, women can wear trousers without causing the slightest stir on the streets.

Again don't assume that because something is "unacceptable" or "wrong" at one particular moment in time, this is somehow *always* going to be the case.

That's not the point I'm making. It doesn't matter whether *you* are racist or not, *others* may be and if they are brought up with the attitude that you having mixed race parents is "morally wrong" or "socially unacceptable", *YOU* are going to suffer because of that.

So what do we do? Stop people of mixed races from marrying or teach children that racist (or homophobic) attitudes are wrong?

You're welcome.


Why not? Answer: because no matter what the dictionary says, some words *do* have negative connotations and it wouldn't be a good idea to use a word like "nigger" in the wrong context.

But *why* do people feel this to be "inherently wrong"? Do you think people are *born* with such attitudes? Is it built into us genetically? Is there an "anti-gay" gene somewhere in our makeup?

Personally I don't think so. I think it's that there's a lot of conscious or unconscious prejudice still in our society and children absorb those attitudes as they grow up without even knowing it such that when they reach adulthood they can pass the same attitudes on to their children without even realising it.

As I said, it depends on *why* you feel that way.

People used to feel that blacks were inferior to whites. A lot of people stood up for the right for whites to own slaves because it was "natural" to do so.

Then others stood up and said "hang on, we're all humans, they're no different from us apart from the skin colour, why shouldn't they have the same rights as us?"

So yes, you can stand up for what you feel, but please don't object when people like me stand up for what *we* feel and say that you're wrong.

We can then debate the subject and come to a conclusion and hopefully that debate will be conducted in a reasonable and rational way and not simply based on "arguments" such as "well I don't like it and they've not been able to do it before, so they shouldn't be allowed to do it now".

If *your* child kicks a ball through *my* window and then claims it wasn't them who did it, you will support them and tell me "tough luck, pal"?

But that argument can be strung out ad infinitum! If you *don't* ever allow them to adopt you're *never* going to know what the implications are.

The point is that unless there are obvious or overwhelming grounds *not* to allow them to adopt then they should be allowed to.

That is not an insult, that is an *opinion* and one that I backed up with reasoning explaining *why* I thought it was "rubbish".

It could. It could also be viewed as parocial, narrow minded, bigoted, prejudiced...

And is that a conclusive reason? Or is it that just another fallacy "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore *because* of it)?

I have little doubt that the increase of youth crime has also been attributed to the banning of corporal punishment in schools, the removal of National Service, children watching too much television and a whole bunch of other factors too. The first two were "tried and tested over time", yet now we don't have them any more. Was getting rid of them "rubbish"?

Fear, uncertainty, doubt. No proof, no logical reasons, no evidence.

Not a good argument.

More FUD. As that pdf Marina posted pointed out, there is very little evidence to show that children growing up with gay parents are negatively affected and an awful lot showing that they *aren't* negatively affected.

This is not completely conclusive of course, but it's certainly more than circumstantial or anecdotal.

Yes, it's a bit OT, but it's relevant and attitudes *are* definitely important in this discussion.
__________________

Sorry, but you miss the point that *nobody* is saying that *anyone* has the right to inflict harm on another person.

You're probably already thinking of a reply that starts "but doesn't it harm the potential rapist by infringing on their freedoms" or some such, however the question then is which does the *most* harm and I doubt you'd find many people who would agree that the rapist would be more harmed than the victim.

I certainly don't accept that there is *any* "truth" in morals! Everyone can agree that Pi is equal to three, but that still doesn't make it true.

And others are entitled to stand up and object. Ask Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

The thing here is that if he *only* required that of Christians then I'd have no problems.

Unfortunately there are Christians out there who want *me* to behave as *they* think is correct, whether *I* want to or not.

They have the right to follow their religion, I don't tell them not to do so because I think it's nonsense and superstition. Why should they then try to inflict *their* opinions on me?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

Except that, once again, Christians are trying to tell the rest of us what we can or cannot do, even though *we* don't follow their beliefs.

And that, to me, is definitely *WRONG*.
__________________

Yes, all of these are possible.

However unless you actually have proof of any of these, you still don't have an argument against gay adoption.

In which case it's a priviledge that's been abused by a huge number of heterosexuals!!!

(PS Isn't the reasoning behind IVF and fertility treatment that people *do* have the "right" to have children???)
__________________

Of which I answered but you do not have the experience or the wisdom to see that answer.[/quote]

No, you have not answered it before, you copped out. Now you have not answered it again, you have evaded.

Are you going to actually give a simple answer to a simple question?

Again you dodge the issue. We are talking about a woman who will *not* take "no" for an answer. One who you *cannot* simply "fend off".

Will you use physical violence against her to get her to go away? Yes or no?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Graham

I think we are at a stalemate, so like several people on this forum who debate with you, we will have to agree to disagree. :shrug:

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Im no doctor but as it has been said in this thread that they are human too which is of course undeniable, they must be susceptible to the same fundamental flaws as hetros

no doubting that, you would hope that social services would intervene more often sometimes.
IVF and other methods is not a 100% guarantee so no it still remians a privelage.
Adoption is a guarantee that a child will be there, its the adopters that come with no guarantee

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Well I hope you enjoy that cup of tea, thanks for answering the question in such detail. Now I have to resist the urge to take this off on a tangent by discussing this point further. :D

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

And as an extra because you insist on delving into my past for more I went into my history and gave you a clear and consise answer, which I will now reitterate yet a 3rd time:
If you do not have the wisdom to see that answer the problem is yours not mine.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Actually I thought that the Doctor's point was that 'rape is wrong' is, when you get down to it, just an opinion, and, by extension, morals are just 'opinion', and therefore relative, and not absolute. I didn't detect any reference to your oft-quoted (and very laudible) saying, 'your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.'

I wasn't thinking that at all ... just for once I'm more interested in illustrating the Christian, Biblical view rather than attacking the secualr one. :)

Well that much is obvious! But then everyone could agree that there is no God and morality is entirely a matter of personal opinion, yet without it being true. We're going to have to agree to differ on this point.

Who was a committed Christian and, despite his fearsome reputation as a civil rights campaigner, apparently never made any public statement in favour of or against homosexual people. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=293986

I've seen the letter posted on Snopes before. It is very funny but it completely fails to grasp the most basic principles of Biblical interpretation, which are due respect for context and identification of literary genre. I am not about to embark on a 1,500 word exposition on this point, suffice it to say that I'm not sitting here thinking 'good heavens! That's a good point, I was obviously wrong all this time!' (and nor am I considering smiting anyone, or slaughtering the family goat).

As for Christians campaigning for society to pick up on their moral outlook, well Christianity is an evangelistic religion. It is our duty to share with the world how we believe God wants the world to be. I make no apology for it. I make no apology for the fact that the abolition of child labour deprived factory owners of cheap labour and deprived families of badly needed income because I can see, as the Christians who campaigned for it believed, that it is for the long-term good of our society.

And yes, I would like you to live your life in a certain way even though you don't want to, because I believe that in the long term, it's for your eternal good. Of course, you can be assured that I will never force you to live the way I want you to except using the democratic means open to you, me and everyone else. At the end of the day this is a legal issue as much as it's a moral one and laws only change when society wants them to.

I know you are a committed liberal but as a Christian I believe that absolute freedom is a myth and true freedom only exists within the boundaries set by God. We are poles apart on this issue.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Nobody has the right to have children. It is a privilige and responsibility. In some cases a privilidge used all too cheaply.

Would I treat a women who would not take no for an answer the same as a gay man? A gay man not taking no for an answer could be more threatening for the simple fact he is a man -gay or not - and therefore probably more physically stronger.

Would I use violence on this man - if he laid hands on me I would retaliate. If the woman was as physically threatening as the man I would retaliate in the same way.

Should gay couples be allowed to adopt?
I would rather a child be brought up in stable family unit gay or whatever rather than some cess pools of familys that are out there.

Would I have concerns as to the welfare of the child?
Whilst I don't believe that the nurture of a gay couple could overide the nature of hetrosexual child - I do believe the child could receive confusing infomation and this would have be handled carefully.

Morals/ Socially acceptable behaviour?
Those that live society must have respect for others "morals" /opinions/ Lifestyles etc.

Consenting adults should be allowed to behave as they see fit as long as it does impact on others. Mutual respect and understanding is the only to have an ordered society and you do not have be religious to know or believe that.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

If the people debating on this thread here, were on the panel that had a gay couple in front of them applying for adoption, where exactly are we up to in this. It appears that it is stalemate. So how do these things work in reality ? does someone have a casting vote or do they debate/argue for weeks.
Btw, its been very interesting reading all these posts and it makes one think.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Like blimey..... some very thoughtful and interesting posts gone up this afty. I'm with Blackthorn - great debate.





Hope you weren't expecting any more from me in this post though :)

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

Id still like to see more comments on the Moby outward statement in his interview follow the article link in this post

And then theres this site which seems to highlight that they do indeed have flaws, and they are harder to address, for several reasons, Namely homophobia, getting turned away, amongst others. Id have to say some may be scared of applying for counselling as they have also perpetrated some indecent offences.
As for the homophobia to some extent i believe its a card that is overplayed at times to achieve positive discrimination, and some bring a certain amount of the homophobia about by commiting indecent assaults of varying levels.
This doenst mean there is no natural homophobia or influenced homophobia wether consciosly administered or not.

Apparently many also have a problem dealing with abuse commited against them and even while living a gay life continue to suffer sexual confusion as to wether the abuse turned them gay or it was a natural event. Id be pretty confident in saying at times that could certainly be true that the abuse can have affected the sexuall orientation.

Im sure I saw somewhere that :
1. abuse against males is one of the most unreported offences so real statistics are really like the illegal immigrant problem, its a hugely unknown quantity. -- That seems a pretty obvious statement in my mind
2. pre addolescent abuse is as much familier as outside of family but the proportion changes significantly to external during and after adolescent.

but cannot find the link atm

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

I'm really not sure where you got the idea that gay people are in some way less stable and therefore less likely to be good parents. Yes, they are susceptible to the same flaws, but that does not mean they are more flawed.

Regarding Moby's statement, as others have said, he may try to raise his kid to be gay, but I doubt he can.

Regarding the team-care link. That is about domestic violence in gay relationships. That occurs, as it does in heterosexual relationships. What point are you trying to make?

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

But it does stand to reason that they are less likely to seek or obtain help for certain flaws. Much male abuse is unreported also helps to clarify that, females are more likely to report abuse and get some counselling.
As earlier a different enviroment is debateable as to wether it could influence in any way what a child tries for sexualltiy, to me it would seem highly likely that he would try gay wether that would come first or not is unknown and each case could be different.
But Iv yet to see anyone but me condem his apparent intent to deliberately attempt to contort a childs sexuall orientation outcome. This is not only biggotted but will further undermine and potentially make it harder for people to accept gay adoption because it will allways be in the back of the minds of any adoption board as to wether they are handing children over to like minded biggoted gays. Iv no doubt there will be some who dont carry the size chip of what others may. It also states he will go to any lengths to ensure it happens. Those lengths we can only guess at. I really hope he never has a kid and if he does it is removed.
Someone wanted to see that its more than just possible and it not only covers gay domestic violence.

Re: Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!
 

It does not stand to reason for me, in fact, it seems a little far fetched. Also, there are female gay people as well.

I don't think it is likely, but I do agree that you shouldn't try to contort as child's sexual orientation, be it straight or gay.

That what is more than just possible?