Earlier this year, Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour's new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.
Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.So they refused to teach the 11-year old child they were caring for what gay is and tell them that's it OK. Ridiculous. First of all, the government is not a religious entity, it has no business telling people what is and what is not right morally. They do, however, tell people what is and what is not criminally wrong. Discrimination is a violation of the law of the government, all fair and well. Now, Christianity teaches that it is immoral to be homosexual, but also teaches to be tolerant (which is not the same as accepting) of homosexuals. It is morally wrong to be homosexual. Again, by no means does the issue of morality translate to just homosexuality. Stealing is immoral, yet many Christians engage in stealing. Do you see what I mean there? The act is immoral, but that does not give anyone a right to go out and beat someone senseless for it. I have a few gay friends, I don't discriminate against them at all. They do, however, know that I believe their position is immoral. But we still get along. For the government to override a person's religious belief, by substituting moral (and not criminal) judgement, they are asserting themselves as a religious organization. You can see this happening in the states as well, as Christians are constantly assaulting while the Left panders endlessly to the Muslims. Watch how many things are taken down around Christmas time, then consider whether the Empire State building would be colored in honor of Christmas and not "The Holidays" the way Eid was for the Muslims.
For another example, let's look at this headline story I stumbled upon while searching Yahoo. "Catholic Condom Ban Helping AIDS Spread in Latam: U.N." Here's an example of the crack journalism displayed in this article:
"In Latin America the use of condoms has been demonized, but if they were used in every relation I guarantee the epidemic would be resolved in the region," said Alberto Stella, the UN AIDS Coordinator for Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.
Well....no shit. I could guarantee that if condoms were used in EVERY RELATION there would be no AIDS...and no babies either. What a genius. Somehow though abstinence is promoted as being "wrong" because if abstinence was practiced fully in EVERY RELATION then there would be no AIDS either. So sure, assault the Catholic Church. The Church is encouraging responsibility and to not engage in sex until marriage. The U.N.'s position is to just throw condoms at everyone walking and let them have at it without any sexual education at all, or to stress personal responsibility. Really, which is worse, preaching abstinence or let's say...giving birth control to 11 year olds? Obviously I'm not exactly the best Catholic in the world, but preaching the right thing is better than preaching up the weaknesses of humans in general and telling everyone there should be no responsibility for your actions unless it goes against the government's wishes. When the hell did Communism win the Cold War?