Not again...

JimiTime · 10-02-2009 04:00PM

MatthewVII wrote: »

That article (and your remark) are some of the saddest and most destructive things I've seen on these boards in this last while. I think this line is that I have most beef with

"This is a devastating decision which will have a serious impact on the welfare of the children involved.

There is an overwhelming body of evidence showing that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and reduce the life expectancy of those involved"

What the hell? I have never come across such evidence and would love to see it if it exists (perhaps someone who knows can link?)

That the grandparents would fight even harder had they known it was a homosexual couple is disgustingly intolerant. The remarks made by the Church spokesman highlights what a remarkably dark age we live in. Gay relationships unstable? Reduced life expectancy? 50 years ago I would have expected this kind of bigotry, but for this to exist today takes the cake.

Were this merely a case of grandparents wanting to take care of their grandchildren I would understand. But they are just pursuing an anti-gay agenda. Naturally, the only side of the story we get is from the dear old grandparents who recant about farmyard frolics and how happy their grandchildren were. I guess we'll never hear from the other side, they'll be too busy being unstable and dropping dead at a young age.

This is unbelievable.

I don't think that there would be many Christians who would agree with homosexuals adopting children. You don't realise that? I see your point however, about the parents fighting harder when it was clear a HS couple were adopting. Does raise a few questions as to why they didn't fight so hard in the 1st place. BTW, are you aware of the legalities of this in the UK? Do you know if HS adption is allowed?

Nodin · 10-02-2009 04:04PM

JimiTime wrote: »

? Do you know if HS adption is allowed?

Yep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption

And fostering.

Dades · 10-02-2009 04:11PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Does raise a few questions as to why they didn't fight so hard in the 1st place.

It certainly does. Given the children supposedly didn't want to leave, and the grandparents lived in the idyllic countryside, etc etc.

That said, despite (some of) our enlightened internet personas, I wonder how many of us would be happy to see their child/grandchild adopted by a gay couple...

JimiTime · 10-02-2009 04:22PM

Nodin wrote: »

Yep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption

And fostering.

So why is it argued that same sex marriage will open the door for same sex adoption? It seems, by your link, that its already legal, and obviously already happening.

JimiTime · 10-02-2009 04:24PM

Dades wrote: »

That said, despite (some of) our enlightened internet personas, I wonder how many of us would be happy to see their child/grandchild adopted by a gay couple...

A question to which the answers I'd take with a grain of salt tbh. Its only when met with the prospect, will it stop being ideals, and start being reality.

sorella · 10-02-2009 05:19PM

Sadly, yes perfectly legal . Some Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close thus of course as they refuse to place children with homosexuals.

I do not have the data to hand; but google will help:)

They are favouring homosexuals to be PC.

JimiTime wrote: »

Article here

I didn't realise this was legal? So is it legal in the UK, to give a child to a homosexual couple in adoption? Is ths common knowledge? Or a I missing something?

sorella · 10-02-2009 05:25PM

A young Muslim woman in Australia became a Christian. She wanted to enter a convent in the US; the New Jersey Dominicans. They raised the air fare.

But the family contacted her and told her that unless she returned and married the old man they had chosen for her, they would kill her (female) cousin, who was still in Australia.

The girl had of course no choice.

This girl has had a conversion; she knows her danger now.

May Jesus protect them and shield them.

Truly this council is doing evil work here. Because of course as they have no faith, none of this has any reality.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I think this is more serious than Christianity being under attack. This isn't about attacking Christianity, this is about bending over backwards to accommodate Islam, for misguided reasons of "tolerance" and multi-culturalism. You can bet if she converted from Christianity or any other religion to Islam, there'd be little objection. Islam has managed to paint itself in Britain as a desperately oppressed minority, so much so that the politically correct establishment refuses not only to criticise it, but refuses to even admit it is causing problems.

According to Islam, this girl should be put to death for apostasy. She was in foster care to begin with because she was being beaten by her male relatives, and she converted probably at least partly because she saw how much better Christian women had it to Muslim ones, and yet because she did this (a clear sign she was not happy with her up-bringing), the state put her back into the home she was raised in, presumably to encourage her to become a Muslim again, and this presumably to avoid accusations that the state was causing Islam hassle.

sorella · 10-02-2009 05:35PM

Sadly predictable .

Your words are the sad ones.

You write this knowing the beliefs on this, from God's word.

And unlike some of your mails, this is highly literate.
Makes one wonder, does that.

Two distinct styles? ( a trained writer sees these things)

We are children of Light.

Living by the Word of God.

Not of darkness.

Children are created by man and woman; that is their origin and their undeniable heritage. From the Lord God. Period.

Your words are also intolerant in the extreme.

"Get thee behind me satan" is inscribed on the Holy Profession Crucifix we wear. Needful indeed. Words of Jesus.

Jesus bless your journey.

MatthewVII wrote: »

That article (and your remark) are some of the saddest and most destructive things I've seen on these boards in this last while. I think this line is that I have most beef with

"This is a devastating decision which will have a serious impact on the welfare of the children involved.

There is an overwhelming body of evidence showing that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and reduce the life expectancy of those involved"

What the hell? I have never come across such evidence and would love to see it if it exists (perhaps someone who knows can link?)

That the grandparents would fight even harder had they known it was a homosexual couple is disgustingly intolerant. The remarks made by the Church spokesman highlights what a remarkably dark age we live in. Gay relationships unstable? Reduced life expectancy? 50 years ago I would have expected this kind of bigotry, but for this to exist today takes the cake.

Were this merely a case of grandparents wanting to take care of their grandchildren I would understand. But they are just pursuing an anti-gay agenda. Naturally, the only side of the story we get is from the dear old grandparents who recant about farmyard frolics and how happy their grandchildren were. I guess we'll never hear from the other side, they'll be too busy being unstable and dropping dead at a young age.

This is unbelievable.

Húrin · 10-02-2009 05:37PM

sorella wrote: »

Sadly, yes perfectly legal . Some Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close thus of course as they refuse to place children with homosexuals.

Ah yes, I see the secular agenda is making the world a happier place.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I think this is more serious than Christianity being under attack. This isn't about attacking Christianity, this is about bending over backwards to accommodate Islam, for misguided reasons of "tolerance" and multi-culturalism. You can bet if she converted from Christianity or any other religion to Islam, there'd be little objection. Islam has managed to paint itself in Britain as a desperately oppressed minority, so much so that the politically correct establishment refuses not only to criticise it, but refuses to even admit it is causing problems.

Do you really believe this conspiracy theory?

sorella · 10-02-2009 05:38PM

Yes; dreadful is it not?

I was in Scotland when they started the campaign to introduce teaching in schools that "gay" union was a life style as much as marriage.

Some of the material planned for 5 year olds was...words fail.

It was then already allowed in UK schools.

This was in an area where the head of social services was an active Lesbian as were other leading figures.

It is a hard world these days.

So sorry Jimitime...

JimiTime wrote: »

So why is it argued that same sex marriage will open the door for same sex adoption? It seems, by your link, that its already legal, and obviously already happening.

JimiTime · 10-02-2009 05:51PM

sorella wrote: »

Yes; dreadful is it not?

I was in Scotland when they started the campaign to introduce teaching in schools that "gay" union was a life style as much as marriage.

Some of the material planned for 5 year olds was...words fail.

It was then already allowed in UK schools.

This was in an area where the head of social services was an active Lesbian as were other leading figures.

It is a hard world these days.

So sorry Jimitime...

I can't say I'm surprised by the direction the world is going. I just never realised it was at such an advanced stage. We live in a sexed up world where desire is king. Its direction is inevitable. We are told in scripture where this world would go, and low and behold.. it was right. Its like scripture is somehow divine;):)

CerebralCortex · 10-02-2009 05:57PM

sorella wrote: »

Yes; dreadful is it not?

I was in Scotland when they started the campaign to introduce teaching in schools that "gay" union was a life style as much as marriage.

Whats dreadful about that?

sorella wrote: »

Some of the material planned for 5 year olds was...words fail.

Couldn't have been that bad, I assume it was responsible adults doing the planning?

sorella wrote: »

It was then already allowed in UK schools.

Sure why not?

sorella wrote: »

This was in an area where the head of social services was an active Lesbian as were other leading figures.

It is a hard world these days.

So sorry Jimitime...

Never thought I'd hear something of that nature from a Nun. But in fairness I shouldn't be surprised having grown up in Ireland.

sorella · 10-02-2009 06:02PM

Reporting this post as a personal attack

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Whats dreadful about that?

Couldn't have been that bad, I assume it was responsible adults doing the planning?

Sure why not?

Never thought I'd hear something of that nature from a Nun. But in fairness I shouldn't be surprised having grown up in Ireland.

AtomicHorror · 10-02-2009 06:24PM

Húrin wrote: »

sorella wrote:

Sadly, yes perfectly legal . Some Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close thus of course as they refuse to place children with homosexuals.

Ah yes, I see the secular agenda is making the world a happier place.

Is there evidence that adoption by homosexual couples reduces the happiness of people other than conservative Christians? By evidence I mean peer-reviewed psychological studies, not Christian pamphlets.

AtomicHorror · 10-02-2009 06:25PM

sorella wrote: »

Reporting this post as a personal attack

Sorella, I really don't see where the personal attack in that post was...

AtomicHorror · 10-02-2009 06:28PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I can't say I'm surprised by the direction the world is going. I just never realised it was at such an advanced stage. We live in a sexed up world where desire is king.

What does that have to do with committed, monogamous homosexual couples? The sex part of their life is a sin by your reckoning, granted. But you could hardly claim the union and it's commitment to be any more motived by sex than a heterosexual marriage. Surely, commitment and exclusivity would be quite a low priority in a world where desire is king?

MatthewVII · 10-02-2009 07:08PM

sorella wrote: »

They are favouring homosexuals to be PC.

Sorry to disagree with you sorella, but they are not favouring homosexuals to be PC, they are allowing homosexuals to adopt to be fair and treat them equally. They're not trying to be "hip" or "trendy" (as another poster on the Homosexuality as a sin thread) - it makes sense to give the same rights to people of different sexual orientation.

sorella wrote:

And unlike some of your mails, this is highly literate.
Makes one wonder, does that. Two distinct styles? ( a trained writer sees these things)

Reporting this as a personal attack. And not a very graceful one at that, considering who it comes from. I would consider a little more humility and a little less patronisation

JimiTimi wrote:

I can't say I'm surprised by the direction the world is going. I just never realised it was at such an advanced stage. We live in a sexed up world where desire is king. Its direction is inevitable. We are told in scripture where this world would go, and low and behold.. it was right. Its like scripture is somehow divine

You're right, consenting homosexuals are clearly sex-driven maniacs unable to control their dark impulses and who have endless cisterns of lust they need to fill. I would recommend getting to know homosexuals (from a neutral standpoint) and learn that they are just the same as heterosexuals.

sorella wrote:

I was in Scotland when they started the campaign to introduce teaching in schools that "gay" union was a life style as much as marriage.

Some of the material planned for 5 year olds was...words fail.

It was then already allowed in UK schools.

God forbid they would learn tolerance and acceptance from a young age instead of learning how deviant and wrong homosexuality is

sorella wrote:

You write this knowing the beliefs on this, from God's word.

I guess I'd deluded myself into believing that christians would merely be influenced on the matter of personal choice by listening to God's word, instead of interpreting god's word as meaning that they had to trample on the rights of others.

Fanny Cradock · 10-02-2009 07:19PM

People, if you really want to get into the mire of the rights and wrongs about homosexuals adopting then start a new thread or take it to the existing 'homosexuality' thread. Thanks.

Nodin · 10-02-2009 08:16PM

JimiTime wrote: »

So why is it argued that same sex marriage will open the door for same sex adoption? It seems, by your link, that its already legal, and obviously already happening.

No idea, and yes indeed it is.

Fanny Cradock · 10-02-2009 08:38PM

Let's keep this on track, folks. If you must discuss other matters then take it to another thread. From here on in I will consider deleting any posts that are not related to the original topic.

Grrrrr!

jaffa20 · 10-02-2009 09:39PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Let's keep this on track, folks. If you must discuss other matters then take it to another thread. From here on in I will consider deleting any posts that are not related to the original topic.

Grrrrr!

No point starting new thread as there have been many on this topic already which have ended with no conclusions but constant bickering.

Fanny Cradock · 10-02-2009 09:42PM

Thanks for that, jaffa. I'll make sure to run any forum related business by you in future. Jimi, I moved your post to the homosexuality thread.

Nodin · 10-02-2009 09:50PM

sorella wrote: »

A young(.....) shield them..

If you're going to reference other incidents, please provide a link to an article.

As to the original incident - from what I can gather they have a duty, in law, to protect the faith of the child in foster care under the Childrens act of 1989. No specific faith is mentioned. I would presume that they view this incident as a breach of what they believe is their legal duty, leaving them open for action by the family, and the state. Precisely why they felt that a breach occurred is at this stage unknown to us. Therefore speculation about 'bending over' to any group in particular - as was entered into earlier - is baseless at this point in time.

sorella wrote: »

Truly this council is doing evil work here. Because of course as they have no faith, ........

How do you know this?

ChocolateSauce · 11-02-2009 06:36PM

Nodin wrote: »

Amazing how you get to that when we don't even have a detailed explanation of why the council removed her from the register.....

Could you be specific about what you think I've jumped the gun on? And if you think I'm wrong, can you offer a viable alternative?

Nodin · 11-02-2009 07:46PM

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Could you be specific about what you think I've jumped the gun on? And if you think I'm wrong, can you offer a viable alternative?

This here

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This isn't about attacking Christianity, this is about bending over backwards to accommodate Islam, for misguided reasons of "tolerance" and multi-culturalism. You can bet if she converted from Christianity or any other religion to Islam, there'd be little objection.

Theres no evidence for that whatsoever.

There is however an act - the Childrens Act 1989 - which says they have a duty as regards the religon and culture of children under Government care. It makes no mention of what religon, or what culture. Its therefore not at all far fetched to imagine a number of scenarios originating from fear of civil action for breach of that, be they well founded or otherwise.

ChocolateSauce · 11-02-2009 08:06PM

Nodin wrote: »

This here

chocolatesauce wrote:

This isn't about attacking Christianity, this is about bending over backwards to accommodate Islam, for misguided reasons of "tolerance" and multi-culturalism. You can bet if she converted from Christianity or any other religion to Islam, there'd be little objection.

Theres no evidence for that whatsoever.

This is largely an opinion piece, but I formed this opinion by reading dozens of news reports from Britain which showed the government treating Islam and Muslims differently from other groups, from refusing to criticise them and from repeatedly calling for tolerance, when Islam is itself extraordinarily intolerant. I also drew on my own personal experiences with people I've met, ranging from hippies and multi-culturalists who talk about embracing other cultures but make no mention of the bad parts of those cultures (and act like I've said something racist when I point out that most Islamic countries have draconian laws), and even from other atheists who are happy to criticise some religions, but not Islam, because they don't want to cause offense.

How many times have you seen the government bend over backwards to protect Christianity?

Nodin · 11-02-2009 09:56PM

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This is largely an opinion piece, but I formed this opinion by reading dozens of news reports from Britain which showed the government treating Islam and Muslims differently from other groups,

Funny, I heard the same about Jews. Mind you, I had the sense to realise it was crap.

You know that if you're an orthodox Jew you can have certain cases seen in the Beth Din courts, which can run as a religous alternative to ordinary civil courts in some circumstances? Tis true.

And its been going on for a 100 years. Yet when someone suggested that muslims be able to take certain matters to a sharia court, panda-fvckin-monium broke out. "There can be only one law" blah blah, in complete ignorance of the fact that there hasn't been for a century. Why? Islamophobia, pure and simple. Fear of the beard, as I often call it.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I also drew on my own personal experiences with people I've met, ranging from hippies and multi-culturalists who talk about embracing other cultures but make no mention of the bad parts of those cultures (and act like I've said something racist when I point out that most Islamic countries have draconian laws), ,

People cherry pick what they want. That way they can fool themselves the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. I fail to see what that has to do with anything. We aren't adopting the Caste system or Sharia law anytime soon, nor do those cherry pickers propose that we do, by your account.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

How many times have you seen the government bend over backwards to protect Christianity? ,

"the Government"? You mean the British Government, I presume. I'm an Irish citizen.

However - Take a look at COE church attendance figures - yet they have around 25 Bishops with a seat in the House of lords. They haven't disestablished the Church of England, or lifted the ban on catholics ascending to the throne.

ChocolateSauce · 12-02-2009 02:10PM

Nodin wrote: »

You know that if you're an orthodox Jew you can have certain cases seen in the Beth Din courts, which can run as a religous alternative to ordinary civil courts in some circumstances? Tis true.

And its been going on for a 100 years. Yet when someone suggested that muslims be able to take certain matters to a sharia court, panda-fvckin-monium broke out. "There can be only one law" blah blah, in complete ignorance of the fact that there hasn't been for a century. Why? Islamophobia, pure and simple. Fear of the beard, as I often call it.

I know, and it really pisses me off. It's hypocrisy of a high order. As for the Sharia courts, I said they bent over backwards, not that they fell over and let the Muslims walk all over them. Even if they don't say it, they know that Sharia courts can be extremely barbaric and incompatible with human rights, and for this reason don't allow them. They weighed up the cost of being hypocrites for allowing Jews their courts and not Muslims, and the cost of being hypocrites for allowing human rights abuses, and decided one was better than the other. What they should be doing is strictly enforcing a one land one law policy.

People cherry pick what they want. That way they can fool themselves the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. I fail to see what that has to do with anything. We aren't adopting the Caste system or Sharia law anytime soon, nor do those cherry pickers propose that we do, by your account.

We in Ireland aren't, there is no question of it. But when there is even a discussion of it in Britain (as we saw with the Archbishop of Canterbury saying they'd have to), it is too far. It's essentially the same as having a debate on going back to the dark ages; utterly unthinkable.

"the Government"? You mean the British Government, I presume. I'm an Irish citizen.

You know perfectly well this entire thread is about Britain and everything I've said is about the British, so don't take that tone.

However - Take a look at COE church attendance figures - yet they have around 25 Bishops with a seat in the House of lords. They haven't disestablished the Church of England, or lifted the ban on catholics ascending to the throne.

A truly undesirable state of affairs. Thankfully, being unelected, the Lords doesn't at all represent the population, and neither does the crown.

Nodin · 12-02-2009 02:32PM

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I know, and it really pisses me off. It's hypocrisy of a high order. As for the Sharia courts, I said they bent over backwards, not that they fell over and let the Muslims walk all over them.
.

Thats wonderful. However in reality "they" did no such thing, as it was never even brought before Parliament. A Bishop (a christian Bishop, not a muslim Imam or some such) merely mentioned the idea in an interview. No muslims attempted to walk, trot or skip over anyone. Except in Deadly Beard Land, where any mention of the "M" word brings a cold sweat to the brow as scimitar waving hordes crest the hill.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Even if they don't say it, they know that Sharia courts can be extremely barbaric and incompatible with human rights, and for this reason don't allow them. They weighed up the cost of being hypocrites for allowing Jews their courts and not Muslims, and the cost of being hypocrites for allowing human rights abuses, and decided one was better than the other. What they should be doing is strictly enforcing a one land one law policy.
.

"they" never did any such thing, except perhaps in your imagination, for reasons mentioned above.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

We in Ireland aren't, there is no question of it. But when there is even a discussion of it in Britain (as we saw with the Archbishop of Canterbury saying they'd have to), it is too far. It's essentially the same as having a debate on going back to the dark ages; utterly unthinkable.
.

If you were to read up on the remit of the Beth Din courts, you'd see that they cannot overrule, or rule contrary to, English law and are limited in jurisdiction. A Sharia court would have been likewise restricted. Again, your imagination seems to be getting the best of you.

ChocolateSauce · 12-02-2009 03:22PM

Nodin wrote: »

Thats wonderful. However in reality "they" did no such thing, as it was never even brought before Parliament. A Bishop (a christian Bishop, not a muslim Imam or some such) merely mentioned the idea in an interview. No muslims attempted to walk, trot or skip over anyone. Except in Deadly Beard Land, where any mention of the "M" word brings a cold sweat to the brow as scimitar waving hordes crest the hill.

"they" never did any such thing, except perhaps in your imagination, for reasons mentioned above.

If you were to read up on the remit of the Beth Din courts, you'd see that they cannot overrule, or rule contrary to, English law and are limited in jurisdiction. A Sharia court would have been likewise restricted. Again, your imagination seems to be getting the best of you.

"They", being specifically the people who run the UK, whoever they may be, don't need to bring a motion before parliament to discuss it. Do you think the idea has never been broached with them, that they have never even heard of these possibilities? I'd be worried if they were so insulated from modern society that they'd never had to think about it.

As for the Jewish courts, I know they are limited, but at the end of the day you still have two systems, one of them only existing to appease a minority. I think it is a slippery slope which is best avoided altogether. There isn't any reason to have two systems.

Not again...

Comments