Why Will he not allow Gay couples Adopt?

by @ct Mon Jan 29, 2007 20:34

The new laws will be enforced in 2008, until then the Catholic church have a statutory
obligation to refer gay couples to other agencies.

+ John Reid is getting a roasting over the prison problem where another young
woman has committed suicide.

That is the trouble with the right wing- they don't really recognise the humanity
of the individual- they codify it- box it- deport it and dump it.

(((!))

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,2....html
http://home.eircom.net/content/ireland.com/breaking/977...omnet

Bliar and Ruthie

by iosaf Mon Jan 29, 2007 21:03

If it is in your nature or genetic make-up to sit on the sofa stuffing saturated foods in your mouth & you can't get your head around quadrilateral equations this might be because you carry the only recently isolated obesity-mental retardation-delayed puberty-macroorchidism-acanthosis nigricans-hyperinsulinemia syndrome gene or it could be because your parents raised you that way.

You'd have to check your the respective genomes of your mammy & daddy. However, the obesity-mental retardation-delayed puberty-macroorchidism-acanthosis nigricans-hyperinsulinemia syndrome gene is not your fault. NO. not a bit of it. That's how god made you. God in his infinite wisdom could have made you in any number of ways with a disposition to be podgey with freckles or slim slender and svelte.

But the Kathurlick church hasn't got round to thinking God in his infinite wisdom did anything other than make people in 3 basic types.
ones with external genitals called men.
ones with mostly internal genitals called women. (of course there is a small apendage the clitoris but it has no known function in catholic belief)
the sinning types who we will call lesbians and homosexuals.

Until some scientist can isolate a gene which predisposes either a boy or a girl to be anything other than hetrosexual, we must in true Aristotlean categorisation presume that such people have chosen that option. It is thus a question of nurture rather than nature.

Now if I take an ordinary baby with genetic disposition to all sorts of things & put in the Harney home for example (perhaps closer to the the obesity-mental retardation-delayed puberty-macroorchidism-acanthosis nigricans-hyperinsulinemia syndrome gene environment) I ought not be surprised if that child grows up portly & suffers the slings and shots of a body-fascist society.

Which is why I believe people with couch potato genes ought not be allowed adopt kids with skanger smackhead genes. This way eugenics may be brought back from the disrepute the Nazi's left it in.
Though of course such genome scanning would soon present societies with the option to "clean" society of unwanted genes. I'll bring you through it quickly. The the obesity-mental retardation-delayed puberty-macroorchidism-acanthosis nigricans-hyperinsulinemia syndrome gene is good for business. Ask any Mc donald's regional manager. But the skanger smackhead gene is not good for business. Yes - it supports the 2nd largest black market in the world, but the acquisitive crime associated with sating such appetites only sees growth in security product sectors & thus reducing profit returns.

on a serious note - the change to the marriage laws in Spain (simply adding the phrase marriage would be equally valid regardless of gender of those taking part) the region of Catalonia has seen a single sex civil union celebrated every working day. Yet only 3 such single sex couples have sought and passed adoption requirements. Of those 3 couples - all were instances of a new "father" or "mother" legally adopting the natural child of the partner by a previous "hetrosexual" relationship. Which of course they might be presumed to have thought contrary to the nature.....

by @act Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:01

Ding-dong.

It does not matter, except that the child is loved. We are tired of the little boxes
that the rationalist materialist oligarichs build for people.

Steve Bell.................................

by plato or aristotle Tue Jan 30, 2007 15:10

lurve? smoochiness? teresa contemplating the sacred mysteries?
is that stuff in our nature or our nurture?
are we born with the capacity to love or is it shaped by environment or more importantly our teenage or post pubescent experiences?

incidently one of the blair brats (the eldest one) has just finished his internship over in Washington serving under a republican congressman and noted homophobe. At least we know the Blair brat probably didnt do a lewinsky style part time job, nor are we likely to give up hope on the meritocracy - the blair brat will have to compete for a political career the way we all do.... still he had a good start, went to the oratory school (attached to westminster cathedral the kathurlick red brick answer to westminister abbey).....very posh.

unfortuanately the direction of this debate at a philosophical level has not changed much since Aquinus did Aristotle for us. Only the genomic empirical proof one way or another shall shake the dirt.
If you are on the liking people with genitials like your own end of the spectrum - it seems pretty bloody obvious you dont adopt kids through a kathurlick agency. I would advise against ashrams too.

by Kourous Tue Jan 30, 2007 15:25

To Aristotle or Plato:-

Greek men , idealists, lovers etc etc- worshipped the male nude.
He became quite a 'thing'= The Kourous.

No-one has yet explained the beautiful Kourous smile, is this then why the
Catholic Church seeks so cravenly to de-hellenise?

Many cultures advocated homosexuality- women were for breeding and for sealing
political and war-like alliances. In fact not much has changed there.

In this age, Love is idealism anyhow. a function of the intellect and not of the heart.
Not the nature and nurture debate.... Please.

+ do not tell me there was not a little bit of homo-eroticism amonsgt the nudey athletes
of Sparta.

by @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:26

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ferns/

The Catholic Church cannot presume to delineate the morality of the
gay adoption issue without first coming to terms with the legacy of
its abuse of women, children and community within Ireland.

That begins with the realisation that a philosophical belief system with one billion
adherents belongs within the realm of choice/privacy and morality and not
in the mechanistic cogs of our failed and corrupt 'democracy'.

There can be no apology without recognition of the wrong.

by C Murray Sat Dec 08, 2007 19:36

http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article/3233318.ece

I would have thought that the whole anti-modernist stance of reactionary catholicism was a thing
of the past, not so. Gynaecology, which I certainly believe is not a place for cardinals to 'be'
is being reduced to multiple resignations because the hospital in question does not
follow the RC teaching on sex issues for women (by men in dresses).