Re: Archbishop of Canterbury Embraces Islamic Terrorism

CDB wrote

Richard Chambers wrote:
Don Aitken wrote

[my universal church, my rules]

[atheists for the Pope]
-----------------------------------
You at least made me laugh here. I don't think that you have caught the
essence of the Don Aitken posting quite so successfully, though.
-----------------------------------

Doctors who do not agree with abortion are allowed, by law, to opt
out of any such procedure on ethical grounds. If doctors are
allowed to opt out on ethical grounds, why has the legislature
tried to force the Catholic Church to act against its own ethical
position. The concept of "ethical position" is of central
importance to any religious organisation, whose primary purpose is
to promote what they consider good ethics. I do not believe the
argument that asserts that it is impossible to legislate for
exceptions on religiously-held moral grounds.

The difference between allowing freedom of conscience to doctors and
allowing it to RC priests is that the Catholic church does not allow its
priests to make up their own minds: freedom of conscience priesthood,
choose one.

There is an inconsistency in the law here. This is the result of
excessive political correctness, forced on the nation by the gay
lobby.

Not only is this imposition by the gay lobby unfair and
unreasonable on the Catholic Church, but it is unfair and
unreasonable to the innocent children arbitrarily allocated to gay
couples. If (most of) these children are not of the type that would
naturally become homosexual, what effect is this strange upbringing
going to have on their future personalities? The answer is that we
do not yet know, because none of them have yet grown to maturity.

The reverse experiment is well-documented, however. The effect on
children of the type that would naturally become homosexual of being
brought up by their presumably heterosexual natural parents does not seem
to be overwhelming.
--------------------------------------------
Children like to be the same as other children. Whether a child who will be
naturally heterosexual, or one who will turn out to be naturally homosexual,
an upbringing by a male and a female parent is the norm. Please do not ask
me, therefore, to be sorry for the naturally homosexual child who is brought
up by a male/female couple, because this could hardly be otherwise. I can,
however, see plenty of reasons why I *might* be sorry for the naturally
heterosexual child who is sent to the care of a male/male or female/female
couple. I shall give you two:-

1. Teasing at school. This sort of teasing, when it starts, is virtually
uncontrollable by the school authorities, and can make life miserable for
the child.
2. Real life, for the heterosexual, consists of two elements. The male
point of view, and the female point of view. The normal child learns the
implications of these two elements from his mother and father. If he (a male
child) is adopted by two males, how is he to obtain knowledge of the female
element. How, even, is he to obtain a knowledge of the genuine male element,
being brought up by two males with a psychological abnormality.

Whatever the answer, my main point remains that we have no right, in the
humanitarian sense, to impose this social experiment on any child, because
we do not know what the psychological effects will be. The social
experimenters will have a lot to answer for if the experience results in
widespread psychological problems for the children later in life.

It would be better if homosexuals could just agree that they are not suited
to rearing children. Just as a man with one leg is not suited to playing
football. I can accept homosexuals in virtually all other roles.
----------------------------------------

This is an obscene social experiment on innocent victims. The child
abuse (that's what it is) should not be allowed whatever political
correctness and the gay lobby might say.

IANAMOTGL, but I say that this is a rationalisation of ill-concealed
prejudice.
-----------------------------------------
I do not know what IANAMOTGL means.
What I have written is rational, and there is no prejudice to conceal.
-----------------------------------------


Richard Chambers Leeds UK.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Archbishop of Canterbury Embraces Islamic Terrorism
    ... naturally homosexual child who is brought up by a male/female ... conditions for adoption may have changed. ... male point of view, and the female point of view. ... It would be better if homosexuals could just agree that they are ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: OT..though when am I ever?
    ... "The book" I meant was the signal one, the one that makes the child understand it is OK to talk to mummy and daddy about sex stuff because they can see what is happening to you. ... Around 30% of female ... The reason for that is that female polecats would otherwise choose many male partners. ...
    (uk.rec.humour)
  • Re: Archbishop of Canterbury Embraces Islamic Terrorism
    ... Whether a child who will be ... an upbringing by a male and a female parent is the norm. ... How, even, is he to obtain a knowledge of the genuine male element, ... I can accept homosexuals in virtually all other roles. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Pedophile Priests WELCOME; Homo Priests GO AWAY
    ... Male offenders ... Basic human sexuality, Mary-bamela. ... also homosexuals) of child molesting. ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)