Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login

January 28th....

last reply
25 replies
1.1k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Unknown User
I'm going to bore you with some wisdom.... lol
Today in 1547 King Henry VIII died, he was the founder of the protestant church....
Today in 1972 unemployment had reached an all time high with miners strikes causing so much distress and poverty...
I'm in a reflecting mood and wonder if King Henry could have looked into the future and seen today what would he have thought... there has been much in the press lately of the Roman Catholics refusing to acknowledge that gay people can adopt and it just makes me sad that when we seem to have come so far over the years.. have we really?? :idea:
I also wonder what the people in 200 years time will think of us?
Unknown User
Ok I'll get my coat............... bolt
mazandden
Sex God
Roman catholics are not refusing to acknowledge that gay people can adopt!!!
Unknown User
The problem with this kind of retrospection is applying our moral values on a different age.
November the 5th for instance. Fireworks, bonfires, parties. However how do you feel about celebrating burning Catholics?
Even if you go back a short distance to the 1970s moral values have changed. On TV we had 'My neighbour's a darkie' and Beeny Hill. Both very popular show aty the time but wouldn't be shown now.
Unknown User
Quote by mazandden
Roman catholics are not refusing to acknowledge that gay people can adopt!!!

Are they not? oops I stand corrected I think I may have read that wrong. But there is something in the news at the minute about them not agreeing to support adoption in gay couples tho right?
Unknown User
Quote by mazandden
Roman catholics are not refusing to acknowledge that gay people can adopt!!!

This is what I've read....
Britain's leading cardinal said on Tuesday the Roman Catholic church may be forced to close down its adoption agencies if the government insists they consider placing children with gay couples
I hold my hands up but I interpreted it to be a refusal to acknowledge.. sorry Maz/Den. :high-smile:
mazandden
Sex God
ok, the story is actually that the catholic church runs adoption agencies of their own, what they want is that other adoption agencies can place children with gay couples but that they will not be forced by law into doing this as it is against their religious beliefs. they have stated that if the law forces them to do this, then they will have no option but to shut down their adoption agencies.
Now, whether we believe that is wrong or not, its a service they provide and why would they keep providing it if it makes them go against their faith?
Unknown User
Quote by keeno
The problem with this kind of retrospection is applying our moral values on a different age.
November the 5th for instance. Fireworks, bonfires, parties. However how do you feel about celebrating burning Catholics?
Even if you go back a short distance to the 1970s moral values have changed. On TV we had 'My neighbour's a darkie' and Beeny Hill. Both very popular show aty the time but wouldn't be shown now.

Speaking as a non practicing Catholic myself, I have never actually heard of this.. it shows how little I know of Guy Fawkes other than the childhood excitement factor. Of course I know the reason he was burnt but had not realised it had religious involvement.. you learn something new every day and I'm first to admit it!
Moral values have indeed changed and for some people probably forced upon as we cannot all agree all of the time.
I just wonder where we'll be and what views will be held in years to come, my reflection night is over you may be all relieved to know.. lol
Unknown User
Quote by mazandden
ok, the story is actually that the catholic church runs adoption agencies of their own, what they want is that other adoption agencies can place children with gay couples but that they will not be forced by law into doing this as it is against their religious beliefs. they have stated that if the law forces them to do this, then they will have no option but to shut down their adoption agencies.
Now, whether we believe that is wrong or not, its a service they provide and why would they keep providing it if it makes them go against their faith?

Thanks for that. I'm not placing a view myself on their beliefs I was just mentioning it as part of my reflecting since King Henry VIII times. I have never been one to get really involved with religious arguments, BUT what I will say is the Catholic Church can be very hypocrital. I am a Catholic myself and I had my daughter out of "wedlock" years ago. My church refused to acknowledge she was here until she had been christened but refused to christen her as I was not married!! :shock: I had to go outside of my parish to get her christened.
I no longer follow my faith, that's my choice but I think when it comes to morality etc., the Church sometimes bleets on about discrimination but here they are discriminating against others themselves.
It's like I said before noone can agree all the time because if they did, what a boring world we would be living in.
mazandden
Sex God
keeno,not overly sure what you mean by celebrating burning catholics??????
northeastcoupleuk
Sex God
Quote by jaymar
I'm going to bore you with some wisdom.... lol
Today in 1547 King Henry VIII died, he was the founder of the protestant church....
Today in 1972 unemployment had reached an all time high with miners strikes causing so much distress and poverty...
I'm in a reflecting mood and wonder if King Henry could have looked into the future and seen today what would he have thought... there has been much in the press lately of the Roman Catholics refusing to acknowledge that gay people can adopt and it just makes me sad that when we seem to have come so far over the years.. have we really?? :idea:
I also wonder what the people in 200 years time will think of us?
add to it the day mr north was born to come and corrupt mrs north(well thats what she tells me)lol
Unknown User
Quote by northeastcoupleuk
I'm going to bore you with some wisdom.... lol
Today in 1547 King Henry VIII died, he was the founder of the protestant church....
Today in 1972 unemployment had reached an all time high with miners strikes causing so much distress and poverty...
I'm in a reflecting mood and wonder if King Henry could have looked into the future and seen today what would he have thought... there has been much in the press lately of the Roman Catholics refusing to acknowledge that gay people can adopt and it just makes me sad that when we seem to have come so far over the years.. have we really?? :idea:
I also wonder what the people in 200 years time will think of us?
add to it the day mr north was born to come and corrupt mrs north(well thats what she tells me)lol
aaaw... rotflmao :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Marya_Northeast
Sex God
Quote by jaymar
ok, the story is actually that the catholic church runs adoption agencies of their own, what they want is that other adoption agencies can place children with gay couples but that they will not be forced by law into doing this as it is against their religious beliefs. they have stated that if the law forces them to do this, then they will have no option but to shut down their adoption agencies.
Now, whether we believe that is wrong or not, its a service they provide and why would they keep providing it if it makes them go against their faith?

Thanks for that. I'm not placing a view myself on their beliefs I was just mentioning it as part of my reflecting since King Henry VIII times. I have never been one to get really involved with religious arguments, BUT what I will say is the Catholic Church can be very hypocrital. I am a Catholic myself and I had my daughter out of "wedlock" years ago. My church refused to acknowledge she was here until she had been christened but refused to christen her as I was not married!! :shock: I had to go outside of my parish to get her christened.
I no longer follow my faith, that's my choice but I think when it comes to morality etc., the Church sometimes bleets on about discrimination but here they are discriminating against others themselves.
It's like I said before noone can agree all the time because if they did, what a boring world we would be living in.
Must depend on the priest then. I'm not Catholic, I had my daughter out of wedlock yet i had her baptised Catholic when she was 4. As long as at least one of the godparents was a practising Catholic and I attended the Church (which i did anyway) they weren't bothered.
At the risk of getting into a religious debate ... why should the Church change it's views to accommodate the "modern world" and today's society? If it is to be taken literally, then God put us on this earth not vice versa, therefore we should abide by him not the other way round.
I think most churches are pretty hypocritical as and when it suits. politics and religion .. bah!
Gitfinger
Sexlightened
Quote by mazandden
keeno,not overly sure what you mean by celebrating burning catholics??????

From :
--
Gunpowder Plot: Conspiracy to blow up the English Parliament and King James I on Nov. 5, 1605, the day set for the king to open Parliament. It was intended to be the beginning of a great uprising of English Catholics, who were distressed by the increased severity of penal laws against the practice of their religion. The conspirators, who began plotting early in 1604, expanded their number to a point where secrecy was impossible. They included Robert Catesby, John Wright, and Thomas Winter, the originators, Christopher Wright, Robert Winter, Robert Keyes, Guy Fawkes, a soldier who had been serving in Flanders, Thomas Percy, John Grant, Sir Everard Digby, Francis Tresham, Ambrose Rookwood, and Thomas Bates. Percy hired a cellar under the House Of Lords , in which 36 barrels of gunpowder, overlaid with iron bars and firewood, were secretly stored. The conspiracy was brought to light through a mysterious letter received by Lord Monteagle, a brother-in-law of Tresham, on Oct. 26, urging him not to attend Parliament on the opening day. The 1st earl of Salisbury and others, to whom the plot was made known, took steps leading to the discovery of the materials and the arrest of Fawkes as he entered the cellar. Other conspirators, overtaken in flight or seized afterward, were killed outright, imprisoned, or executed. Among those executed was Henry Garnett, the superior of the English Jesuits, who had known of the conspiracy. While the plot was the work of a small number of men, it provoked hostility against all English Catholics and led to an increase in the harshness of laws against them. Guy Fawkes Day, Nov. 5, is still celebrated in England with fireworks and bonfires, on which effigies of the conspirator are burned.
--
So basically, Bonfire Night is a celebration of the discovery of a Catholic plot, and a symbolic renactment of the execution of one of the perpetrators - although Fawkes was actually hung, drawn and quartered. However, as the says, "the political meaning of the festival has grown to be very much secondary today."
The full story here:

There's a lot more to it than letting off a few fireworks! One wonders whether the green half of Glasgow celebrates Bonfire Night!
tmann
Sex God
Quote by jaymar
Roman catholics are not refusing to acknowledge that gay people can adopt!!!

Are they not? oops I stand corrected I think I may have read that wrong. But there is something in the news at the minute about them not agreeing to support adoption in gay couples tho right?
As I read it Rome said, ' Single gay peaple can adopt' in other words non-practicing gays. What a tangled web we weave when first we seek to control hearts and minds.
mazandden
Sex God
So, according to that it has nothing to do with burning catholics then,lol, didnt think so!
Unknown User
Quote by Marya_Northeast
ok, the story is actually that the catholic church runs adoption agencies of their own, what they want is that other adoption agencies can place children with gay couples but that they will not be forced by law into doing this as it is against their religious beliefs. they have stated that if the law forces them to do this, then they will have no option but to shut down their adoption agencies.
Now, whether we believe that is wrong or not, its a service they provide and why would they keep providing it if it makes them go against their faith?

Thanks for that. I'm not placing a view myself on their beliefs I was just mentioning it as part of my reflecting since King Henry VIII times. I have never been one to get really involved with religious arguments, BUT what I will say is the Catholic Church can be very hypocrital. I am a Catholic myself and I had my daughter out of "wedlock" years ago. My church refused to acknowledge she was here until she had been christened but refused to christen her as I was not married!! :shock: I had to go outside of my parish to get her christened.
I no longer follow my faith, that's my choice but I think when it comes to morality etc., the Church sometimes bleets on about discrimination but here they are discriminating against others themselves.
It's like I said before noone can agree all the time because if they did, what a boring world we would be living in.
Must depend on the priest then. I'm not Catholic, I had my daughter out of wedlock yet i had her baptised Catholic when she was 4. As long as at least one of the godparents was a practising Catholic and I attended the Church (which i did anyway) they weren't bothered.
At the risk of getting into a religious debate ... why should the Church change it's views to accommodate the "modern world" and today's society? If it is to be taken literally, then God put us on this earth not vice versa, therefore we should abide by him not the other way round.
:thumbup: I think most churches are pretty hypocritical as and when it suits. politics and religion .. bah!
The priest at that time was very old, he died not long ago not far from age of 100. He was practising still in the old fashioned way and even tho he refused he gave me the number of someone who eventually did christen her.. that was 13 years ago, so much as changed since then I guess. lol
The Church shouldn't change their views, no body should be forced to change their views but neither should they complain when they are discriminated against themselves.
Unknown User
I KNOW in my heart that a child would be better off in many ways living with Mrs Kiss and I rahter than in a childrens home.
Also the law that the Catholics are trying to suggest shouldn't apply to them is also the same law that stopped hotels putting signs like "No Irish, No Catholics" on their doors.
Unknown User
Quote by
Roman catholics are not refusing to acknowledge that gay people can adopt!!!

Are they not? oops I stand corrected I think I may have read that wrong. But there is something in the news at the minute about them not agreeing to support adoption in gay couples tho right?
As I read it Rome said, ' Single gay peaple can adopt' in other words non-practicing gays.What a tangled web we weave when first we seek to control hearts and minds.
grrrrr.. how can anyone say that!.. it's even more unfair! non practising.. and how do they have to prove it! makes my blood boil
Unknown User
Quote by Kiss
I KNOW in my heart that a child would be better off in many ways living with Mrs Kiss and I rahter than in a childrens home.
Also the law that the Catholics are trying to suggest shouldn't apply to them is also the same law that stopped hotels putting signs like "No Irish, No Catholics" on their doors.

Of course they would, and that's my whole point... two people can give a child so much love, far more than them feeling unloved, rejected, placed in children's centres etc.,
So.... what would King Henry VIII make of this all! lol we've ended up digressing but it's a worthy debate. Actually King Henry had zilch in the morality stakes, he had so many wives for his own sake, to have a child.!..
Unknown User
Quote by Kiss
I KNOW in my heart that a child would be better off in many ways living with Mrs Kiss and I rahter than in a childrens home.
Also the law that the Catholics are trying to suggest shouldn't apply to them is also the same law that stopped hotels putting signs like "No Irish, No Catholics" on their doors.

I totally agree with you kiss hun. It breaks my heart to read our local newspaper ever week as it has adverts with pictures of these children looking for someone to foster or adopt them. If my place was big enough id take them all. sad
Louise xx
mazandden
Sex God
Quote by Kiss
I KNOW in my heart that a child would be better off in many ways living with Mrs Kiss and I rahter than in a childrens home.
Also the law that the Catholics are trying to suggest shouldn't apply to them is also the same law that stopped hotels putting signs like "No Irish, No Catholics" on their doors.

No doubt it would be, and be better off in many ways than a lot of kids in conventional families are.
However, think the point is that as they are providing a voluntary service they should be able to make that choice, and if they cant have the right to choose they can withdraw the service.
So, if they are forced to abide by this rule a valuable service will be lost, if they are given an exception then they can continue to provide the service they do, and gay couples can still adopt from other agencies.
i think the whole religion thing is a load of crap, and of course its discrimination, but forcing this upon them doesnt help anyone.
poshkate
Sex God
Quote by Kiss
I KNOW in my heart that a child would be better off in many ways living with Mrs Kiss and I rahter than in a childrens home.

Yep this is the thing that gets me most about it, if there are a couple who can give a child a loving and happy home I don't think it should matter what their sexual preferences are......I worry that there is a potential situation where a child could miss out on being adopted purely because the Catholic church wouldn't allow them to be adopted by a gay couple......
Unknown User
If people truly in their hearts believe something is wrong. Why should they be forced to act against these beliefs?
If the Adoption Agencies believe that it is not in the best interest of the children to have them placed with homsexual couples, then why shouldn't they be able to withdraw from that service?
It seems to me that these Agencies are behaving in a correct manner in stating that they may have to review/withdraw the service because they cannot abide by the new legislation.
Surely we must respect their beliefs in a way that we would want them to respect ours?
Unknown User
But where do we draw the line? It has to be drawn somewhere.
A lot of people go on about Islam and Muslim people and the seemingly 'special' dispensations they get - they are no different to Catholics apart from in their choice of religion.
Unknown User
I realise this is an emotive subject however,
I feel the Agencies have the right to withdraw the service if they feel that the legislation is forcing them to act against what they believe is right. It would appear that they are trying to avoid breaking the law and maintain their religous beliefs. I/you may not agree with those beliefs but it seems to be the right thing to do. If you cannot uphold your own moral beliefs and stay within the law you should attempt to remove yourself from that position.
The only thing that sticks in my throat is that by making this announcement they appear to be attempting to blackmail the government into changing the legaslation.