Gay interest: Discussion v campaigning

[ahinton]

I fail to see much difference between sudden restrictions on Catholic belief and practice regarding adoption agencies in the UK and new curbs on gay promotion in Russia!

That is, as FF has already pointed out to you, because the former is not restrictive whereas the latter would be. Could you please explain to us how you arrive at the conclusion that the former is restrictive in terms of Catholic belief? It makes no sense to me; I don't get the connection.

If that's what the majority in both countries really wish then it's somewhat difficult to deny however wrong and damaging we personally feel these changes might be.

In the Russian case, it might be worth bearing in mind that such proposed changes in law would simply not be acceptable within EU (or in certain other countries) and what the Russian authorities ought to exercise their minds about is that the proposals represent a backward step historically as well as placing unwelcome and unjustifiable curbs on the human rights of non-heterosexuals in Russia.

[scottycelt]

One is opening out to gays and the other is closing off?

You see this as a 'restriction' on Catholic belief, others see it a development - 'Eppur si muove' as Galileo is said to have murmured while facing the Catholic Inquisition.

And the 'one' is closing off to Catholic belief while opening out to gays? Any idea of 'development' might be a matter of no little conjecture in some quarters.

Galileo and the Catholic Inquisition occurred around 1615. A bit like alluding to the Battle of Prestonpans during a campaign to vote for Scottish Independence in the 21st Century.

[french frank]

Galileo and the Catholic Inquisition occurred around 1615. A bit like alluding to the Battle of Prestonpans during a campaign to vote for Scottish Independence in the 21st Century.

Not really, it was designed to show that Catholic belief changes as wisdom of the world grows.

[scottycelt]

That is, as FF has already pointed out to you, because the former is not restrictive whereas the latter would be. Could you please explain to us how you arrive at the conclusion that the former is restrictive in terms of Catholic belief? It makes no sense to me; I don't get the connection.

I can only point you in the direction of what I've already 'pointed out' in return to FF!

In the Russian case, it might be worth bearing in mind that such proposed changes in law would simply not be acceptable within EU (or in certain other countries) and what the Russian authorities ought to exercise their minds about is that the proposals represent a backward step historically as well as placing unwelcome and unjustifiable curbs on the human rights of non-heterosexuals in Russia.

Russia is not in the EU and as far as I know there are no immediate plans for it to join.

I'm sure the Russian authorities will look closely at your advice for them 'to exercise their minds' on how the run their own internal affairs.

If the huge majority of Russian people find the promotion of homosexuality unacceptable that is their 'human right' as well!

Hope that now makes some sense to you.

[jean]

...the promotion of homosexuality...

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what this means.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what ["promotion of homosexuality"] means.

Perhaps that some people think that, whereas it used to be Private, it's now become General?

[ahinton]

I can only point you in the direction of what I've already 'pointed out' in return to FF!

And indeed you have done just that, albeit to no avail as I am unconvinced and, being so, must agree with her response to you.

Russia is not in the EU and as far as I know there are no immediate plans for it to join.

Of course it isn't, although it already borders some nations that are EU members and may before too long border several more; the point here, however, is not so much that as the fact that Russia cannot realistically conduct all of its business in isolation and, in today's connected world, it will realise that all eyes are on what it does and that it will accordingly need either to bear that in mind or deliberately and wilfully ignore it and be seen to do so - a risk that it will either be prepared to take or not.

I'm sure the Russian authorities will look closely at your advice for them 'to exercise their minds' on how the run their own internal affairs.

I was responding to a post from you, not to one from Vladimir Putin! and, in any case, it contained observations, not "advice" - but, as I've said, whatever they do, the eyes of the rest of the world will be on them and they will need to bear that in mind.

If the huge majority of Russian people find the promotion of homosexuality unacceptable that is their 'human right' as well!

Oh, not that old chestnut again! I ask you again, where's the evidence for this "huge majority"? - i.e. some 70m-80m Russian adults? A poll whose conduct, numbers and results are all open to question but which in any case could not possibly have involved more than a tiny minority of the Russian adult population as a whole could not possibly hope to convince anyone of anything other than a handful of people who would already have made up what passes for their minds before it was even conducted!

Hope that now makes some sense to you.

As you will see from the above, it does the opposite!

[ahinton]

Perhaps that some people think that, whereas it used to be Private, it's now become General?

Or even Admiralable?...

[scottycelt]

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what this means.

Well of course you were told one glaring example which you immediately dismissed and, clearly having a special interest in Russian internal affairs, you were then also invited to contact the Russian Embassy for other examples that might possibly breach the new laws.

Have you not done that ... ?

[scottycelt]

And indeed you have done just that, albeit to no avail as I am unconvinced and, being so, must agree with her response to you.

If you agree with 'her response' presumably you must also have understood the subject of 'her response' which you previously claimed you didn't ?

Please be logical and consistent, ahinton!

As you will see from the above, it does the opposite!

Funny, had this peculiar feeling it might ... :winkeye:

[Barbirollians]

I find prejudice on the grounds of religious belief and sexual orientation equally repellent. What i find very sad is that some of religious belief find the latter acceptable indeed laudable whilst I have not come across any gays or lesbians believing that discrimination on the grounds of religious belief is acceptable.

I thought Rabbi Jonathan Sacks' interview on Sunday was very interesting - he , whilst making plain that he did not agree with gay marriage ,was very sensitive to the appalling nature of such prejudice - he did not forget the pink triangle joined the yellow star in concentration camps - unlike sadly his profoundly bigoted predecessor Jakobivots.

[scottycelt]

I find prejudice on the grounds of religious belief and sexual orientation equally repellent. What i find very sad is that some of religious belief find the latter acceptable indeed laudable whilst I have not come across any gays or lesbians believing that discrimination on the grounds of religious belief is acceptable.

I thought Rabbi Jonathan Sacks' interview on Sunday was very interesting - he , whilst making plain that he did not agree with gay marriage ,was very sensitive to the appalling nature of such prejudice - he did not forget the pink triangle joined the yellow star in concentration camps - unlike sadly his profoundly bigoted predecessor Jakobivots.

Are you referring to me in your first paragraph?

I heard Jonathan Sacks this morning and I agreed with every single word.

It's actually you who vehemently disagrees with him on the issue you mention. I fully support it and all the other sentiments he expressed!

[french frank]

If you agree with 'her response' presumably you must also have understood the subject of 'her response' which you previously claimed you didn't ?

Please be logical and consistent, ahinton!

Never mind about that! You didn't actually respond to my point other than to make a comparison between Prestonpans and Scottish Independence now.

On Galileo, " ... the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "gravely suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. This was subsequently commuted to house arrest, under which he remained for the rest of his life [about nine years]." That was because Catholic belief ws convinced that the sun revolved around the earth. Catholic belief was wrong as it eventually conceded. I'm not sure what your own position is on this.

Ergo, firmly held Catholic beliefs are not immutable: they evolve with the times.

[ahinton]

If you agree with 'her response' presumably you must also have understood the subject of 'her response' which you previously claimed you didn't ?

Please be logical and consistent, ahinton!

Read the posts, scotty! I said that I didn't understand one of FF's posts and that, as I later admitted, turned out to be because, although I'd read the post itself, I'd not read the link that was included therein and, after I'd done that, I could see what she meant. Do try to concentrate, scotty!

Funny, had this peculiar feeling it might ... :winkeye:

Your call, sir; nothing that I or anyone else could possibly have done about that!...

[scottycelt]

Never mind about that! You didn't actually respond to my point other than to make a comparison between Prestonpans and Scottish Independence now.

On Galileo, " ... the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "gravely suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. This was subsequently commuted to house arrest, under which he remained for the rest of his life [about nine years]." That was because Catholic belief ws convinced that the sun revolved around the earth. Catholic belief was wrong as it eventually conceded. I'm not sure what your own position is on this.

Ergo, firmly held Catholic beliefs are not immutable: they evolve with the times.

Ahhh, I see we are conveniently determined to remain in the early 1600s ...

Some of us can appreciate the difference between ancient mistaken Catholic belief about science and essential religious doctrine. After all I'd imagine even a few secular scientists get it very wrong as well in those days! Some still do I suspect. Galileo.of course, was himself a Catholic. He got it right about the sun and the earth. The Church authorities had got it hopelessly wrong. Not much change there then.

If essential Catholic doctrine had 'evolved with the times' (secular) we would hardly be having this discussion now would we?

Please be logical and consistent, French Frank!