tinpra

lol...from them or from me post-reading?

From:

I wasn't too thrilled that the British government has ruled that Catholic adoption agencies have to arrange for adoptions for same sex partnerships if they are approached by such couples. To me, it seems to be bending the interests of a sizable number of believers in a certain doctrine to the wishes of a small number and that doesn't seem right to me.
Any thoughts?

From:

nikita31j7a.livejournal.com

Either. LOL

From:

nikita31j7a.livejournal.com

That really surprises me, though I have no idea what the "rules" are for Catholic Charities here. However, having worked with children from less than ideal home environments, I'd have to say I'm in favor of whomever will love that child as he should be loved.

From:

I can understand that POV, but I'm with hal on this. It's infringement on traditional Christian beliefs as espoused by these Catholic adoption groups. Which, in the States at least, is the government putting itself into the affairs of my religion which is unconstitutional if those affairs aren't harming others. I think Lesbian/Gay groups counter that, however, by saying that their rights as individuals are being infringed by a religious practice, which is unconstitutional. I don't know how that would work out in courts, I'm not even sure the US government hasn't already made a move that way, but I imagine any religious adoption agencies that receive any government funding would have to cede to the gov't's wishes or lose that funding.

From:

I've barely started Mere Christianity but C.S. Lewis is a funny guy. Looking up some random stuff on him, I ran into criticism of his Narnia books. One of which is that it's too religious...that it's Christianity cloaking itself in a children's series. Which it is. It's allegorical. Of course I didn't realize it was an allegory for years, which leads me to believe that ppl who find offense with it in that way were looking for all the Christian imagery. I was just enjoying a book

But back to MC: so far Lewis is making a lot of good common sense points. No big forays into Christendom yet. And interesting to read the way he puts sentences together, jsut from the point of view of being a writer and him being English.

As for "Same-Sex Partnerships?"... On the one hand Stott makes the good point that even though prohibition against homosexuality is only mentioned explicitly twice (I think) in the Old Testament and implicitly a few more times in the New Testament, the Bible does dwell often on how marriage is supposed to work. Anything that deviates from those examples, according to Stott (and I agree) then deviates from God's plan. On the other hand, Stott doesn't come down on whether or not homosexuality is something people are born into or choose to do due to whatever their complicated reasons should be. Of course he may have purposefully not dwelt on that point since the book is about homosexual relationships and not necessarily homosexuality itself. That and it's a right tiny book. It's really focused.

Aaaaaand I don't think I answered your question. lol.

From:

That's my pov exactly, tinpra. I think same sex partnerships should be allowed to adopt and give children loving, stable homes. My point of contention is that there are many secular adoption agencies that can handle these cases and the British government should not 'force' Catholic & Christian agencies to go 'against' their beliefs by withdrawing funding if they refuse to comply.
I'm not a particularly staunch Catholic but to me, it's the principle of a government (and one that holds itself largely disinterested from religious matters) attempting to direct the course of particular religious ideas.

From:

Okay, I get what you're saying now. I wasn't really focusing on the 'government-telling-the-church-what-to-do' aspect. THAT I have a problem with. That having said, I'm still in favor of what's in the best interest of the child. I don't know how it works in England, but in the US, Catholic Charities is a private, not public, adoption agency, and as such I don't *think* subject to the caprices of the government or the ACLU.

From:

Sorry nikita, I hadn't made the details of the issue clear. Sadly, Catholic agencies will have to comply with these anti-discrimination laws and have 21 months to prepare for these new laws. So the agencies would be breaking the law if they didn't allow applications from same sex couples.
A case of one law for all.

From:

Rereading this I just realized my first line is unclear. C.S. Lewis is a funny guy, end stop. Above and beyond his wit and humor I looked up some stuff on him...etc and so forth.

From:

Somehow I bet someone is looking for a loophole on that.

From:

If the ACLU is involved, I guarantee it. :\

From:

Would they be interested in a non-American issue though? I think not, especially as it's a point of British law and Parliament. :(
I see this as a step on the slippery slope downwards where anti-discriminatory laws will be taken to extremme lengths to enforce the rights of minorities against the majority. Who's to say that there won't be extremist minorities (I'm not suggesting that homosexuals are extremists) who will step forward next and say they are being discriminated against at work, leisure, in the community etc.

From:

Well we meant the ACLU would be interested in a more general if-something-like-that-happened-here kind of way.

As for the slippery slope: It's hard to be an American and say "Well you're in the minority. We're not gonna cede to your wishes." because that's the antithesis of what we believe. At least what we say we believe. At some point you've got to figure out who deserves what rights/freedoms without them stepping on the rights/freedoms of someone else. But we don't seem talk about balance like that, we just seem to talk about how someone is getting whatever it is they want because they're Something Else, whatever that something else is. And usually the public feels like that denial is automatically wrong, even if it's something like forcing a religious institution to act outside it's tenants. The idea being, I guess, that the religion - or whatever it is - is wrong to deny anyone, without thought going to whether the group being denied is actually in the right itself.

And wow this is so vague that I'm almost confusing myself.

From:

I had to read it twice but I understood you! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter especially as I hijacked your journal entry ;)

From:

Ha! I'm just glad you understood it.

From:

WAY late to the party, and probably confusing even to me, but here goes. I do not believe homosexuality is a choice, but a genetic proclivity. That having said, the choice is to be in or out of the closet. It doesn't matter to me either way.

HOWEVER, I have a severe problem with "gay rights" and homosexuals expecting special treatment simply because of who they are. We don't have parades or make allowances for left-handed people, even though being left-handed isn't a conscious decision and we *are* a right-handed world.

Does that make sense? Or am I really oversimplifying to the point of being unbearably vague?

From:

I see where you are coming from. I think from a homosexual point of view (with the disclaimer that I do not believe that homosexuality is genetic) that they feel that they aren't being granted special rights, but are fighting to gain or take back basic rights they should have. For example, someone I know likened it to the Civil Rights movement. I didn't agree with her, but there you are.

From:

Not to be combative, but what rights are they taking back? The Civil Rights movement dispelled (in theory) racial segregation; allowing all people to attend whichever school, sit in any bus seat, and drink from any water fountain they wanted. None of that has ever been denied homosexuals. I don't see a parallel at all.

From:

All of this with my disclaimer that I am not for gay rights:

Well I guess you can take the issue I'm arguing/discussing now on another message board as an example: gay marriage. All human beings have the right to join themselves together, assuming that they are "in their right minds" and/or aren't being coerced. But, when I say that, I really mean that all men have the right to join together with any woman of their choice, and all women have the right to join together with any man of their choice barring the "right mind" and coercion thing. A male/female couple also has the biological right to have a child, or to adopt if they don't want to or can't get pregnant.

Gay couples, for the most part I think, do not have the right to marry and/or adopt (although I'm a lot sketchier on the adoption side). Why? Because marriage is popularly a union of a man and a woman. Except that from a homosexual perspective marriage is simply a union. End stop. Adoption is something that is done by people who can be good parents, no matter the gender(s) of the person and/or couple.

In that way homosexuals see themselves as being denied their basic rights as human beings. Now being neither homosexual nor for gay rights, I'm sure someone else could explain it better but that's how I understand it.

From: