The Catholic Gay Adoption Agency

[Saracen]

Sorry to hear about the tumour, Kezzer, and I sincerely hope everything works out for you. As for faith, if it's a comfort and a help, then it's a comfort and a help, regardless of whether it's 'true' or not, and I'm a great believer in "what works, works".

And I might be a lot of things, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to be convinced I'm right and you're wrong, and that's the end of it. It's just the view I've developed into over a considerable period. I'm not even arrogant enough to not concede that something could happen to change my perspective.

And yet another perspective is ... if you're wrong and I'm right, you've lost nothing. If you're right, and I'm wrong, I'm probably in deep poop. So, potentially and rationally, belief is a lot smarter than scepticism, right or wrong.

Please also take this without offence. If you've lost very good friends over this, despite your situation, then I would question whether they were as good friends as you think they were because, in my opinion, that sucks. True friends would be supporting you in a time of need and pressure, regardless of whether they agree with your Christianity or not. It's dangerous making snap judgements from the outside, but falling out with you over that, at this time, suggests they not only weren't good friends, but weren't very nice people either.

[Saracen]

I know now, I think I meant Perry Mason

Oh, got you. You meant the other Ironside .... a bit like when I'm driving and the wife says "turn left" and I do, only for her to look to the right and say "no, the other left".

No, I know there have always been exceptions. The examples you give of how sikhs are pulling one over on the rest of us I have to say are pretty weak IMO ....

They're not the strongest examples, I agree, but if you look at some of the references I gave to equality in employment, for instance, you'll find several much closer parallels.

Denying people the right to adopt, or keeping kids in care rather than allowing them to be adopted, absolutely is intentionally materially disadvantaging them.

But, on the basis that gay adoptees are referred, and perhaps adopting nicho's suggestion of transferring lists of kids too, then gay couples wouldn't be disadvantaged, and even under current rules, aren't being denied the right to adopt. The Catholics don't have the right or ability to do that, even if they wanted to and that article I referenced claims they don't seek to do so anyway.

As I've said, it's about the best interests of the kids, first, middle and last. I just can't see how forcing Catholic agencies out of the field is in the best interests of the kids.

Yes, except this time, because this example would undoubtedly be beyond what is acceptable in a modern society. They were beaten on the gay guesthouse thing as well, good thing too.

I can see an argument, as was made above, for letting religious people determine who stays under their roof, in the same way that they can say "no pets" or "no kids". I can't say I agree with that argument, re: guesthouses, but I can see the point.

But with adoption, as I say, it's about the kids. Their interests just seem to have been sacrificed to the Gods of political equality. If the best interests of the kids have been sacrificed on the altar of the rights of gay couples to adopt, then I guess you're right .... it's about what is acceptable in a modern society, and I have to say, it's an indictment, in my view.

[Kezzer]

There's one final thing I'd like to say.

If someone's faith truly brings them happiness and great joy in life, then why would you want to take that away from them?

[Saracen]

There's one final thing I'd like to say.

If someone's faith truly brings them happiness and great joy in life, then why would you want to take that away from them?

I wouldn't. Not at all. If anything, the opposite. Why do you think I spent all that time reading and studying, and going to church? If you have faith, and it brings you happiness, then I wish you the very best with it and, as I've said a couple of times, you may be right and I may be wrong.

If you think I've been saying I want to take that away from you, then either I've been saying things very badly, or you've been misreading what I said.

I'm curious, though, as to why you'd think I want that?

[ajbrun]

There's one final thing I'd like to say.

If someone's faith truly brings them happiness and great joy in life, then why would you want to take that away from them?

Atheists could say the same thing about Christians who stand in town centres and preach.

[nichomach]

Actually it was outside of germany's borders in a land far far away that you probably couldn't locate on a map,

I can find a surprisingly large number of places on a map, as it happens, but since you don't have the honesty to just state where it was, I can't guarantee that in this instance I could. Do I take it from that that as far as you're concerned what the Nazis did within their own borders was fine then? Of course not; the basic point that law and morality may occasionally be in conflict and that law should not always be paramount would still stand, then.

and certainly you do not have the first clue about it's history, or the legality, not to mention the morality of sending my grandad to a concentration camp.

I've never questioned the immorality of that; as to the history or legality, state which country we're talking about. Or don't; the fact is that whether it was legal or not, it was morally wrong to do so, and in that instance, morality should have had primacy over legality, even if the law required such an act. Was that priest's act immoral? Certainly. Quite a few Christians actually got sent to concentration camps themselves upholding that very point.

So keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.

Or you could have the good grace to provide the name of the country in question; if I am uninformed as to its history, I'll correct that deficiency.

And you know where you can stick your straw man, as well.

Well, your suggestion that I was drawing a moral equivalence between you and the Nazis was a straw man argument; I merely pointed out that it was.

Look, I am not out to insult you, or the memory of your grandfather (albeit a memory only accessible to you through the recollections of others, which is in itself a tragedy). I'm merely pointing out the most obvious example of a situation where law and morality were in conflict, and where the law in question was wholly wrong and abhorrent.

[nichomach]

Kezzer, I'm terribly sorry to hear about the suspected tumour; I earnestly hope that it isn't that, and I'll pray for your wellbeing/recovery.

[Kezzer]

I wouldn't. Not at all. If anything, the opposite. Why do you think I spent all that time reading and studying, and going to church? If you have faith, and it brings you happiness, then I wish you the very best with it and, as I've said a couple of times, you may be right and I may be wrong.

If you think I've been saying I want to take that away from you, then either I've been saying things very badly, or you've been misreading what I said.

I'm curious, though, as to why you'd think I want that?

It wasn't directed at you whatsoever mate, it was just general for everyone on the forum.

ajbrun, Christians aren't trying to take away their happiness, they're trying to offer them it. If atheists turn it down then Christians won't hassle them into it or tell them they're wrong and are leading pointless lives.

[Kezzer]

Kezzer, I'm terribly sorry to hear about the suspected tumour; I earnestly hope that it isn't that, and I'll pray for your wellbeing/recovery.

There are many, many people praying for me at the moment whether they're religious or not. Unfortunately I didn't expect my neurologist to propose that to me whatsoever. My assumption was that he was going to say "you're fine, go home". I guess it's lucky they found whatever it is (even if it's not a brain tumour the neuro said that it was there well before I was in a coma) because I could've just dropped dead one day.

I don't fear death whatsoever though, not because I'm religious but because I know I've got it coming no matter what, so there's no point in fearing what you know is there.

Thanks for the kind words though people, but they should be for my family and friends, they're going through a tougher time with my ordeal than I am myself. It's tougher to watch someone go through something rather than experience it yourself. Let's just say I'm glad I've got my memory and speech back

[Saracen]

It wasn't directed at you whatsoever mate, it was just general for everyone on the forum.

Well, that certainly explains why I couldn't work out what I'd said that gave that impression.

It was just that we'd been discussing faith, bibles etc and it seemed to follow from that.

.....

I don't fear death whatsoever though, not because I'm religious but because I know I've got it coming no matter what, so there's no point in fearing what you know is there. .....

Ironically, I don't fear it either, despite not being religious.

I think there's two reasons.

Firstly, it's coming for all of us, and nobody knows when. Statistically, for most of us, it's a good way off, but anyone could get flattened by a bus tomorrow. I knew a bloke, some years ago, fit as a fiddle, never drank, never smoked, didn't even drink tea or coffee ..... and dropped dead in the office one day, aged 35. Massive coronary, apparently.

And the second reason is that doctors showed me a scan of my father's liver, one mid-June and told me he wouldn't make it to August. Six YEARS later, we still had him. A good friend of mine was told that spinal injuries a drunk driver gave him years ago would have killed him many years ago, but he's still alive and kicking.

From which, I concluded that none of us can be sure we're going to last as long as we expect, or that we've only got the limited time the doctors assure us we have.

So if we've got the brains God gave a raspberry, we'll each take every day as it comes and live it to the full. Do that, and we'll all get the most out of whatever time we have, and that's not a bad achievement for anyone.

[ajbrun]

ajbrun, Christians aren't trying to take away their happiness, they're trying to offer them it. If atheists turn it down then Christians won't hassle them into it or tell them they're wrong and are leading pointless lives.

2 points in response to that:

* What if atheists are happy to have science as their god?

* Are atheists not allowed to offer that happiness to those who are religious in the same way that the religious offer it to the atheists?

[chrestomanci]

If we accept, as I imagine most people would, that homophobia is wrong, then it doesn't seem too far to accept that the state ought to ban displays of homophobia...

IMHO, if we allow homophobic discrimination, then we displays ought to be compulsory, so that liberal thinking straight people know who to boycot.

Back when this debate what in the media, there was a radio interview of a Christan B&B owner, who said that he refuses hospitality to gay couples because of his religion. The exact location of the B&B was not given. I have stayed in loads of B&Bs over the years with my wife, and I could easily have stayed at his. I certainly would want to avoid giving business to anyone as narrow minded and bigoted as that B&B owner.

[Kezzer]

2 points in response to that:

* What if atheists are happy to have science as their god?

* Are atheists not allowed to offer that happiness to those who are religious in the same way that the religious offer it to the atheists?

We offer what we call "salvation" to non-believers. If they don't want to take it, then we don't bother them anymore, so we're not trying to take their happiness from them as we never make any insulting comments towards them. On the other hand, most atheists I know will try their damn hardest to take my faith away from me by coming up with various theories behind their claims. If it's seriously for my own benefit, then I'd appreciate it, but you know as well as I do it's a battle of "who's right or wrong" as opposed to "I'm doing this for the benefit of you".

[Kezzer]

Well, that certainly explains why I couldn't work out what I'd said that gave that impression.

It was just that we'd been discussing faith, bibles etc and it seemed to follow from that.

Yeh sorry, I didn't really notice that part Like I say, my faith makes me happy, I'd never force it upon anyone, but I do like supporting my own faith in case anyone is against it, but most of the time I give up not because I can't win the fight, because it's not the right thing to do.

I think we all know here that it gets to the point where it's just utter bitterness and ends up having little to do with the religious claims themselves but just a battle for correctness. I don't care whether you're right and I'm wrong, I don't care if I'm right and you're wrong, all I care about is making everyone else around me happy as well as keeping myself happy in the world I live in. I'll never force my opinions on anyone one of you, I only put on show what is to offer. At the end of the day I think no matter what cultural differences we have, what beliefs we have or even what kind of person we are, we should all have respect for each other and if someone truly enjoys what they are doing with their life and it's not doing any harm to anyone else then we should try our damned hardest to be supportive of that. Screw the social differences, that's not what matters. I think any human being can differentiate right and wrong, and I think it's wrong to step on someone's beliefs and tell them they're wrong, no matter how much you may disagree with it. You would never see me telling an atheist they are wrong, I just expect an equal amount of respect in return.

[Saracen]

Re: trying to convince someone their belief's are wrong ....

If I was sure I could PROVE someone's belief was wrong, would I be justified in showing them that proof? Maybe.

If that person was happy in their deluded belief, would I STILL be justified in showing them that proof, because implicit in the removal of the delusion is the removal of the happiness they derive from it. Again, maybe. IMHO, it depends on circumstsances. If, for example, someone was deliriously happy in the notion that they could fly, I'd be justified (IMHO) in convincing them otherwise before they tested their belief by jumping off a high cliff.

But, so far as I'm aware, nobody has EVER managed to prove the existence, or non-existence, of any form of God. We can argue it, we can rationalise it, and we can interpret the "Holy Word" (of whatever flavour), but prove it? Nope.

And, of course, if proof existed, we wouldn't need faith. So, in my view, when holy men (teachers, clerics, priests, etc I mean) preach to us about the virtue and power of faith, my response is "well, you would say that, because your entire belief system relies on it being a virtue to rely on something inherently unproveable".

I do not, as a rule, debate belief systems with people and with one significant exception, I don't try to convince religious people they're wrong .... if for no other reason than that I can't be sure they are.

If I tried to convince religious people their faith is misguided, I'd be doing to them exactly what winds me up when they do it to me (and some, many even, do) which is to try to get them to accept my belief system by dumping their belief system. To do that would be hypocrisy.

So (if I'm in the mood) I'm happy to debate beliefs with religious people IF they want to debate it, but I'll do so in the form of explaining what I believe and why, rather than preaching or trying to convert them.

I mentioned an exception to that. The exception is anyone that tries to shove their beliefs on me either despite my clearly not being interested, or in wholly inappropriate circumstances. My favourite "inappropriate circumstance" is on my own doorstep. I do NOT like anyone pestering me at home by trying to shove their beliefs on me, regardless of how good-intentioned they feel they are. And yes, I'm talking primarily about Jehovah's Witnesses. I have lived in my current address for many years, and have told them again, and again and again that I don't want them calling. Do they pay any attention? Nope. Well, they didn't until fairly recently, anyway .... about the time when I totally lost it and told them exactly and in clinical detail (and VERY intemperate language) exactly what I thought of them. As I haven't seen them for some time, maybe, just maybe, the message finally got through. But if they call again, they're going to get the same again, and it won't matter whether they're young women or old ladies, or whatever, it is NOT going to be a pleasant experience for them.

Absolutely core to my personal philosophy is not shoving my beliefs on others. In a context like a forum, I'll debate and discuss most things, and perhaps try to convince people of the logic of my stance (and perhaps be convinced by them). That is, after all, what a debating forum is about. But other than that, I believe in live and let live, and in not doing things that inconvenience others, and I expect the same courtesy in return.

So I do NOT expect to be interrupted when working, interrupted during evening meal, dug out of the bath, pestered while I'm on the phone or interrupted while 'on the job' () ..... all of which have been managed over the years by pesky, pestering eff'ing JWs.

If the JWs are right, I will CHEERFULLY sign up for hell right now, just to get away from them. Maybe then they won't keep hammering on my door.

And if there's any JWs reading this now, well, you're probably not the ones pestering me, but if you are, I hope you appreciate the utter contempt in which I hold you.

[Kezzer]

I was a JW for 13 years. Oh how I hated door-to-door. It's a forced religion for the children of the family anyway.

Burn them I say.