Interesting points. The catholic hierarchy in the UK would do well to read it. It is true, people can change their religion from belief to disbelief and some can remain within their faith and evolve as Ian Duncan Smith has done. What many people of faith do not understand is that religion is always mutable and relatively easy since it’s learned behaviour, sexual orientation isn’t.
Catholics, most of them, don’t know about their own history in this country, the Catholic Relief Act notwithstanding. Just because equal marriage might offend religious beliefs is no basis to deny gay people access to civil marriage since this in no way affects their ability to marry or procreate. Nothing will change, in fact marriage will not change. All that this will do is expand civil marriage to include one group of people. This can only strengthen marriage, religious and civil, not harm it.
Go PinkNews! Reversing the logic. But of course there is no logic to their objections to marriage.
Has anyone seen this? Appalling!
Well its nice to know that we as a community have brought a sense of religious harmony to the world hither unto seen.
Ooooops ! I think they forgot to add the Mormon Churche in their alliance… How shameful !
Ooooops ! I think they forgot to add the Mormon Church in their alliance… How shameful !
What a churlish article. It’s divisive (which some readers might love) in ways that misrepresent Catholics but which also make LGBT persons look out of touch with reason.
The original editorial claimed: ‘PinkNews.co.uk respects the rights of people of faith and none.’ But by taking an awful joke (of sorts) out of context, this extract suggests otherwise. The original editorial also condemns ‘preaching […] traditional, negative responses to sexuality’; yet this extract preaches traditional, negative responses to religion.
Instead of writing misdirected (and poorly executed) satire and appealing to absurdism, why not implore reason? Any debate spawned by propaganda such as this will always be devisive and reductive. I’d like to see this piece removed from PinkNews.co.uk, since it itself encourages the hatred it purports to oppose.
no its called deliberately swapping the terms Catholic and LGBT to show them how ridiculous the argument of the faith schools and the vatican are.
So it would read: ‘A group of Catholic parents and their allies start their own free school movement, wishing to create an enviorment [sic] where their children will be respected regardless of their family background, sexuality or gender identity’? I don’t think so, do you?
The original news item was about state faith schools. By dragging the term ‘free schools’ (an entirely different and more controversial political matter) into the editorial, the writer was clearly playing a crude game of antagonizing the issue and the readers.
I stand by what I said: this failed attempt at satire is churlish and divisive. Furthermore, it has no place on a news website where people might take it at face value or (as you clearly did by swapping the proper nouns) as a damning report on Catholic teaching practices.
The greatest contradiction at the core of this piece is that it denies others the right to act by their conscience (which, by ridiculing ‘divine revelation’, the writer rightly implies is a social construction) whilst the motivation for writing it is evidently triggered by an outraged conscience.
The argument in the post script, that this absurd fantasy depicting social action spurred by an artificial religious encounter ‘is in some ways more logical than the lesson given to children today at some religious schools’, is baseless and utterly illogical.
This ‘Alternate History’ (it is no such thing) is an utterly foolish piece, which as an atheist LGBT individual I’d publicly like to distance myself from.
Let´s not ever mimic the crimes of our oppressors. However, as an English teacher, an interesting article on empathy, nothing more.
You can’t beat satire to reveal how vile some people are. Brilliant.
The point is that actually LGBT parents could start a free school under the new proposals. Actually I know of some being proposed for specific faith communities.
But anyway, all that this article did in my mind was to reverse the logic. It is through an incorrect (I’m a theology graduate so I did actually study this) interpretation of a supposed divine experience that the prohibition on homosexuality is derived.
God ‘dictated’ the Torah to Moses, it contained the restriction of ‘lying with another man as one lies with a woman’. I’m not going to go into the actual translations and interpretations of this text because it’s complicated and requires knowledge of the local non-Judaic cultures at the time of the actual codification of the Torah.
But based on this divine experience, we get the ban on gay sex and hence gay marriage. Same scenario with the ‘gay’ faith parents.
Doesn’t work as gayness isn’t a faith. Also doesn’t work as it doesn’t change the principle of marriage.
“Nobody chooses to be LGBT [...]”
I am wary of arguments that are based on “we were born this way” (even if used only in a satirical argument) for several reason.
First, the argument is irrelevant, because equal rights should not be denied *even if*, for some people, sexuality is a choice.
Second, if a “we were born this way” argument doesn’t save black people from racists, then I don’t think it would save GLBT people from homophobes.
Third, if it can be proven that sexuality is encoded in DNA, then homophobes will probably start funding research into developing cheap pre-natal tests, so that pregnant women can be given the option of an abortion if tests indicate that their foetus is likely to be something other than straight.
Except that fundamentalists including those of the roman cult would oppose abortion. “Thou shalt not kill”. They believe human life begins at the moment of conception before a foetus takes any form.
True, but not all homophobes are anti-abortion fundamentalists. So, there would be enough pro-abortion homophobes to do harm.
There should be no religious or faith schools… Gay or otherwise, schools that have a particular social, political or religious bias are not fairly and correctly teaching the pupils and availing them of different ideas. A good school is one that teaches that intolerence and bullying of any kind is abhorrent.