Discrimination ok, if based on religion? what else then?

I have to ask...
why 'ghey'?

I won't say I make an error by looking at the positive results of a male/female coexistance when it is done well.It teaches mutual respect of different sexes, proper male behavior towards women, female grace towards a man's sometimes blunt exterior. It teaches that a man who neglects his family is not good, or a man who abuses his strength.In short, it gives an example of a role model for both sexes, and 'role' means just that...being the role of a father, or of a mother, amoung other 'roles'. I am sure that there is much to gain in most family situations if they are loving, but it is not an error to value the most ideal situation.

I deplore those policies, but they are genuinely internal church matters. The church members have to find their own way past them. They never came to trial because the church concealed the crimes until the statute of limitations applied.

---

Free Dr. Adequate! Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

thats just your opinion though, how is it "ideal"? there is not one shred of evidence that shows you need a mother and a father, there is evidence that 1 or more loving people are what you need and you can figure the roles out from any male or female personyour list has nothing to do with having parents of different sexes, just an observent kid with good values and you just need someone with good values to raise them, heck a grandfather or grandmother only could teach thosethis just seems like you are making an argument from tradition, nothing more
as i've come to realize though, all traditions are wrong

Sorry 'bout that; just wearing my stereotipcal bible thumping discrimination accent.It's a bad habit and I should stop it.

Nothing wrong with this attitude.Your next homework is to look at the positives of same sex coexistance when it is done well.If you decline, your position is no better than sexism, racism or any other form of discrimination.

Obviously so did the victims and their families.

Good values are in the eye of the beholder.

Would polygamy be a good subject to research? Or a religion where women are segregated from the men for most of the day, even in a positive way?In most same-sex partnerships, the roles of male and female are not clearly shown. It is often not two men showing male behavior, or two women showing female behavior. They may be showing love, but not 'role' as they are often acting in the 'role' of the opposite sex.

You surprise me, anastasia. That is an astonishingly ugly remark.True, some victims--young children, remember--did not report their victimization out of shame as well as the fear instilled by their victimizers: "You will go to Hell if you tell," I recall, was one pedophilic priest's threat as he sodomized a young boy.And no doubt some parents also remained silent also from shame and overawe of the church.Would any of that make the victim guilty like the victimizer?But many children did complain, and parents did report. In response, the Church "investigated" and almost invariably cleared their priests, or simply dismissed the accusations out of hand as lacking all credibility, and then sent the predator on to new pastures.Surely you already knew all this? Surely, once you learned of this pernicious infection in your Church, you made it your business to learn the truth and to insure that it did not continue?

---

Free Dr. Adequate! Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I do not harbor ugly thoughts, sir, perhaps only imperfect conversational skills.Simply, my point is; a priest can not be prosecuted without a witness or a victim. Since as you admit, so many were afraid to speak up until decades later, it is not polite to use such a blanket statement as 'the church concealed the crimes until the statute applied'.And reminding you that the victims themselves were often concealing the crimes, does not make them part of the conspiracy. My bad if it sounded like that was what I meant.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I'm glad to hear you say so, though I would point out that the silence of a traumatized, terrified child is not concealment. It may not be polite, anastasia, but I'm afraid it is correct.Many victims and their parents spoke up, and the Church--in the persons of its priests, bishops and archbishops--almost invariably put the public reputation of the Church ahead of the protection of the innocent. When hundreds of past victims did begin to step forward, the Church--in the persons of its priests, bishops and archbishops--destroyed records and resisted mightily states' attempts to get at the truth. Indeed, they asserted the same ecclesiastical privilege that is claimed in denying adoptions to gay couples. It is to their great credit that parishioner organizations came together to pressure the ecclesiastical authorities to divulge the truth.In fact, the Church itself has admitted its great failing in this regard, yet the resistance to accountability continues: in the New York region, the Church is fighting in court to block the release of public court records that demonstrate the transfer of known pedophiles to unsuspecting parishes, claiming to wish to protect the privacy of the victims--even though ALL the victims in this particular class action suit have signed off on the request to open the court records.Churches are made of people, and all people are fallible: I understand that. But when it comes to the question of seeking the best interests of children, the Church has no high ground on which to stand.

---

Free Dr. Adequate! Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

As a field of research, yes. Please show why is is a bad thing.

quote:

---

In most same-sex partnerships, the roles of male and female are not clearly shown. It is often not two men showing male behavior, or two women showing female behavior. They may be showing love, but not 'role' as they are often acting in the 'role' of the opposite sex.

---

What do gender roles have to do with love and cohabitation?Or rather, why do there need to be roles defined by gender?

I'm interested to know what exactly you think these 'roles' are. or indeed, should be.