OK, I am a practice member of the RCC, I've never in 31 years heard a sermon about homosexuality or homosexual rights, for reasons altogether removed and different from my religious faith I oppose moves like this one.
reject the bill that would allow same rights for all regardless of sexuality
Its funny, there's a time that particular orientations tried to assert themselves in their distinctiveness and now its "hey, we all the same", I can think of a host of reasons why I could and wouldnt support this practice and approach to sexual orientation.
For one I'm heternormative and make no bones about that, people can support something else if they want but I'll oppose them, wont hate them, which implies a special feeling for them I dont have, but simply wont support the sort of society they want to create. What are the objective projected stats to suggest that alternatives to heterosexual parenting and commit are beneficial etc. Do you know that the stats for sustained, successful homosexual coupling are relative to thos of heterosexuals?
Social services remove young children from grandparents and arrange adoption by gay couple - Telegraph
For another as Peguy has said before sexual orientation should be an irrelevence, in most of the instances and questions which are being dealt with, instead its used as an opportunity to profile a particular, generally minority, perhaps even a smaller minority than is supposed if, as I believe, you where able to control for behaviours which are too quickly welcomed or accepted as a particular orientation when its anything but.
Another reason is the massive element of compulsion and coercion here, this is also part of the reason why the religious angle is seized upon, although I do think its for the most part liberal attempts to attack religious faith or authority with any pretext, but these organisation still do provide many adoption and social services in some parts of the world. They also operate under very specific precepts. At an earlier time EVERYONE would have campaigned against the state interfering with that so long as it did not result in any harm to anyone.
Now the idea is to do the opposite and children WILL suffer if a choice has to be made between conforming to the cultural agenda of a minority of homosexuals (truthfully I believe it is, any of the homosexuals I know in real life are not as interested in these topics as liberal women, in the main) and a majority of liberals and religion haters and providing a service. I just think that's wrong.
In the case of adoption services or fostering services the rights of the child should be paramount, when that is forgotten child welfare is jeopardised as it was in the UK when social workers to afraid of being accused of bigotry when visiting a homosexual male couple failed to pick up on their sexual abuse, including the creation of a catalogue of photos, of a number of males in their care.
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Bradford | Foster carers jailed over abuse
The reality is that the topic of homosexuality and how it has been politicised by friend and foe has made it impossible to talk about, people view highly partisan opinion to be reasonable and reasonable alone, anything threatening that perspective is unwelcome and its one of the few topics that people feel they can and will blow their top about and be justified in doing so because obviously anyone who feels differently than they do are bigots. Which in a different time or place would have been the attitude of someone who couldnt have a challenge to, for instance, aryanism.
If you take the premise of this thread alone, what's the basis for changing this law, sexual orientation? Simply that? How many kids you going to effect by that move? Its not even an objective or right consideration of the issue its instead a race to respective fox holes to play goodies and baddies again.