Catholics deny gays right to adopt.

[InsaneApache]

This one has all the ingredients of a backroom topic. Religion, gays, liberal legislation........


Catholic threat on gay rights law
The head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has said adoption agencies will close if they cannot opt out of new gay rights laws.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6289301.stm


Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, a devout Catholic, was reported at the weekend to be considering an opt-out which would cover Catholic adoption agencies.

The Equality Act, which has already been delayed once, but is now due to come into effect in England, Wales and Scotland in April, outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

There's a surprise!

Just who do the Catholics think they are? Whether you agree with the legislation or not, it is about to become the law of the land. Passed by a, barely, democratically elected government. Perhaps I should ask for an exemptment from, say, the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 and then pay a visit to Kelly and Blair. :whip:

[yesdachi]

it sounds like it is a Catholic adoption agency, doesn’t that make it “private” allowing them to run by their own rules, like the way the boy scouts don’t allow gays? Could an adoption agency without a catholic affiliation be used if gays wanted to adopt?

[InsaneApache]

It is private in the sense that it isn't government run. I have to say though what has that got to do with it? Private or not, they should obey the law.

I wasn't aware that the boy scout movement was homophobic, indeed I get the distinct impression that they are the opposite. :laugh4:

The problem is that the Catholic adoption agencies used to refer gays to other agencies but now, because of the new law, they will not be able to discriminate. They will have to process any applicants on merit alone, not on some religious based morality.

[cegorach]

If everyone has to make it possible, closing the agencies is the only option.

I am sorry, but giving adoption rights to gays is definetely not acceptable from catholic point of view. The same could be said about many other problems such as euthanasia (sp ?) - if in the future hospitals will be obliged to allow this kind of 'solution', private, catholic clinics included - the only thing left would be closing them as well.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It's good to see you so staunchly defending one of Blairs many great incentives to modernise the UK, InsaneApache. :beam:


I wasn't aware that the boy scout movement was homophobic, indeed I get the distinct impression that they are the opposite. :laugh4: Yes, exactly! Also, I thought many priests were quite into young boys as well?

I say we forbid Catholics from adopting. God forbid some poor adoption child should turn out to be homosexual, ending up being raised in a homophobic environment. :no:

[drone]

I wonder what would offend the Catholic Church the most: allowing gays to adopt babies, or aborting the babies instead. :inquisitive:

[King Henry V]

I believe the sanctity of life is more important than the issue of homosexuality.

[drone]

I believe the sanctity of life is more important than the issue of homosexuality.
You believe it, I believe it, most people believe it. But does the bureaucratic-political entity known as the Catholic Church support that view?

[Goofball]

Very simple:

If an adoption agency is run and financed 100% by the Catholic Church, then the agency should be able to refuse adoption to gays.

But if an adoption agency receives any government money, then it should not be able to refuse adoption rights to gays.

[Redleg]

Very simple:

If an adoption agency is run and financed 100% by the Catholic Church, then the agency should be able to refuse adoption to gays.

But if an adoption agency receives any government money, then it should not be able to refuse adoption rights to gays.

I agree. If they take money from the state - they must abide by the state's regulations.

[English assassin]

And.... in the blue corner, we have the people who have the legal right to have their religious beliefs respected.

In the red corner we have people who have the legal right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of their sexuality.

Refereeing, we have the government that thought everyone could all get along in one happy "big tent" if only, yunno, we could all be nice to each other for a change, and stuff.

Ding ding, round one.

This is what happens if you get your political philosophy from the sleeve notes of Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band.

[Duke Malcolm]

And.... in the blue corner, we have the people who have the legal right to have their religious beliefs respected.

In the red corner we have people who have the legal right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of their sexuality.


And in the corner yet to be born, the child who will have 2 mums or 2 dads. Perhaps this child should have a right to a mother or a father. It could also affect the child in later life, bullying and such. There are some other things, but i can't be bothered to type anymore...

[Husar]

Very simple:

If an adoption agency is run and financed 100% by the Catholic Church, then the agency should be able to refuse adoption to gays.

But if an adoption agency receives any government money, then it should not be able to refuse adoption rights to gays.
I also agree here.
If the gays don't get their children from one private agency, they can always go to another agency or even found their own one and give no babies to catholics there.:juggle2:

[Don Corleone]

It is private in the sense that it isn't government run. I have to say though what has that got to do with it? Private or not, they should obey the law. So if the government passed a law insisting that anyone performing marriagies must perform them on same-sex couples, the Catholic Church (and the Church of England for that matter, noticed that they were mentioned in the article, but you're targeting Rome, not Canterbury) must perform them as well? It's your argument that churches are subject to the whims of the local council? Interesting.


The problem is that the Catholic adoption agencies used to refer gays to other agencies but now, because of the new law, they will not be able to discriminate. They will have to process any applicants on merit alone, not on some religious based morality. Wrong. As said in the article, they won't adopt to gays, they'll close their adoption agencies. See, when you try to force somebody to do something against their beliefs, they'll just remove themselves from the situation altogether.

This happens over here all the time. Every now and then, some crusading Maoist assembly will pass a law attempting to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. If they cannot fight it legally, the Church usually winds up closing the Obestetrics unit, problem solved. Of course, poor women now cannot always get checkups and deliveries, but the Stalinists have once again saved the day... they've made certain the Catholics aren't refusing to perform abortions in their obstetrics unit anymore.

I thought you Leftys loved that catch-phrase "You cannot legislate morality". Isnt' that exactly what this so-called "Equality Act" does?

[English assassin]

I thought you Leftys loved that catch-phrase "You cannot legislate morality". Isnt' that exactly what this so-called "Equality Act" does?

Give that man a cigar. 40 years after the first race relations act, we have a race storm on national telly. 35 years after the equal pay act women's average take home pay is still 75% of so of mens.

Hmm, you know what? Maybe more laws aren't the answer...:idea2:

Still, it all keeps me in business :yes:

[Samurai Waki]

My mom is very staunchly Catholic, my little brother is very gay... somehow the love of a mother overrides the immorality of being homosexual(don't take this as my personal POV), as they are the best of friends.

[Goofball]

So if the government passed a law insisting that anyone performing marriagies must perform them on same-sex couples, the Catholic Church (and the Church of England for that matter, noticed that they were mentioned in the article, but you're targeting Rome, not Canterbury) must perform them as well? It's your argument that churches are subject to the whims of the local council? Interesting.

Wrong. As said in the article, they won't adopt to gays, they'll close their adoption agencies. See, when you try to force somebody to do something against their beliefs, they'll just remove themselves from the situation altogether.

This happens over here all the time. Every now and then, some crusading Maoist assembly will pass a law attempting to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. If they cannot fight it legally, the Church usually winds up closing the Obestetrics unit, problem solved. Of course, poor women now cannot always get checkups and deliveries, but the Stalinists have once again saved the day... they've made certain the Catholics aren't refusing to perform abortions in their obstetrics unit anymore.

I thought you Leftys loved that catch-phrase "You cannot legislate morality". Isnt' that exactly what this so-called "Equality Act" does?

It skirts the edge of it, to be sure, but I don't believe it's legislating morality. It's actually legislating against imposing Catholic morality, as the law says that the Catholics must process the adoptions regardless of what their institutional morality dictates. I don't believe equality to be a moral issue. It's the Catholics who are trying to say that some are "less equal" than others, based on Catholic morality...


And in the corner yet to be born, the child who will have 2 mums or 2 dads. Perhaps this child should have a right to a mother or a father. It could also affect the child in later life, bullying and such. There are some other things, but i can't be bothered to type anymore...

Good, because I couldn't be bothered to read anymore.

The old "it's unfare to the child because the rest of us are cruel bigots who will taunt him" argument is utter tripe.

And two moms or two dads raising a child in a loving home beats the hell out of a single parent doing it every day of the week and twice on Sunday. But there is no law banning single parenthood for the "protection" of the child, now, is there?

But that's OT for this thread.

If these Catholic agancies are receiving gov't $$, then they should bite the bullet and process the adoptions.

If the law is saying they have to do it whether they are publicly funded or not, then the law is wrong.

[doc_bean]

Meh, Catholics (as an organisation) only seem to care about children when they can benefit from them. My next-door neighbour has a nun as an aunt who worked in a orphanage. For christmas and other holidays she often got present that were actually meant for the orphans.

All said and done, I might still prefer the the Mother Church to all those little protestant sects

EDIT: as for it's their right to do as they please, I disagree, it's about the children and they can hardly chose what adoption agency they winded up with. Besides, if there was an adoption agency that only gave kids to white people we'd all be outraged. Marriages and abortions are another issue, since the other involved parties actually have a choice of going somewhere else. Adults can go to any clinic, can get married by any official, kids can't change their adoption agency.

[Samurai Waki]

I'm still awaiting my reply for initiation into the Anti Semitic Jewish Community.

[Don Corleone]

Good, because I couldn't be bothered to read anymore.

The old "it's unfare to the child because the rest of us are cruel bigots who will taunt him" argument is utter tripe.

And two moms or two dads raising a child in a loving home beats the hell out of a single parent doing it every day of the week and twice on Sunday. But there is no law banning single parenthood for the "protection" of the child, now, is there?

But that's OT for this thread.

If these Catholic agancies are receiving gov't $$, then they should bite the bullet and process the adoptions.

If the law is saying they have to do it whether they are publicly funded or not, then the law is wrong.

I didn't make that argument, nor would I have. I think you need to read a little more closely, senor.

[InsaneApache]

I thought you Leftys loved that catch-phrase "You cannot legislate morality". Isnt' that exactly what this so-called "Equality Act" does?

ROFL moi a lefty? :laugh4: Wait until JAG and Idaho hear about this.......It'll ruin their week. :yes:

[Goofball]

I didn't make that argument, nor would I have. I think you need to read a little more closely, senor.

Mea culpa. Sorry, my friend. Forgot to change the name in the quote.

Fixed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Meh, Catholics (as an organisation) only seem to care about children when they can benefit from them. My next-door neighbour has a nun as an aunt who worked in a orphanage. For christmas and other holidays she often got present that were actually meant for the orphans.

All said and done, I might still prefer the the Mother Church to all those little protestant sects

EDIT: as for it's their right to do as they please, I disagree, it's about the children and they can hardly chose what adoption agency they winded up with. Besides, if there was an adoption agency that only gave kids to white people we'd all be outraged. Marriages and abortions are another issue, since the other involved parties actually have a choice of going somewhere else. Adults can go to any clinic, can get married by any official, kids can't change their adoption agency.

Interesting arguement. What about the staunchly Catholic child that gets placed with a gay couple because his shoddy agency let him down. Cuts both ways.

If you believe something is morally wrong then the law should not be able to force you to do it. I personally believe only married couples should adopt, because an unmarried couple is more likely to break up and a single parent will have a great deal of trouble.

Children need same-sex role models. A boy with two mothers will have trouble relating to other men, unless he finds a role model outside his family.

[Don Corleone]

ROFL moi a lefty? :laugh4: Wait until JAG and Idaho hear about this.......It'll ruin their week. :yes:

I thought you'd get a hoot out of that. :yes:

Fiscally, certainly not. Matters of foreign policy, no. But when you start advocating for passing laws that outlaw religious beliefs in the name of PC notions, well, if the shoe fits....~:pat:

[Goofball]

Interesting arguement. What about the staunchly Catholic child that gets placed with a gay couple because his shoddy agency let him down. Cuts both ways.

I don't know many "staunchly Catholic" infants, so it's probably not an issue at that age. For children of an age where they have formed such advanced religious views, I would think the agency could on a case-by-case basis simply offer a different adoptive parent/child match up, in order to accommodate the views of both parties.

But to say "we won't let gays adopt any children" is just wrong.


If you believe something is morally wrong then the law should not be able to force you to do it. I personally believe only married couples should adopt, because an unmarried couple is more likely to break up and a single parent will have a great deal of trouble.

Really? I don't know that that's true. Divorce rates are huge. Being married doesn't seem to guarantee stability.


Children need same-sex role models. A boy with two mothers will have trouble relating to other men, unless he finds a role model outside his family.

That's not true. There is no evidence to support that. Children raised by same sex couples are just as well adjusted (or disfunctional) statistically as those raised by hetero couples.

The determining factor is not the sex of the parents, but the quality of the parenting.

Edit: typo

[BDC]

Kelly is an idiot. Isn't she the Opius Dei member?

And as we all know from the Di Vinci Code, they killed Jesus's babies or something.

[Don Corleone]

The determining factor is not the sex of the parents, but the quality of the parenting.

I think you're half right here, and on the important half no less. But as a parent, you know that children learn by emulation. How can a young man learn to be a man from two man-hating lesbians?

Yes, quality of parenting would be higher on my list of priorities then having a gender role model. And at the end of the day, I personally think 2 loving homosexuals in a committed relationship would probably do a fine job and the kid should be thankful for the adoption, period. But we're not arguing my views here. We're arguing whether the government has the right to step in and force a religion to change its dogma. I say no.

And I guarantee that if there's Islamic adoption agencies in the UK, they will get to opt-out. Nothing against muslims, that's a swipe at autocratic PC politicians that don't even wear a fig-leaf of governing on principle.

[cegorach]

You forgot to add that Opus Dei members drink blood and controll world's economy. :laugh4:


BTW It reminds me some guys from early XXth century:inquisitive:

[ajaxfetish]

I'm a firm believer in gay rights, and believe that gay couples can make excellent parents. However, I do not believe it is the government's place to force a religion to contradict its own moral principles. Assuming these agencies are entirely funded by Catholic money, it is a free charity service provided to the community. It is not something the church is obligated to do, and should probably be treated with some level of appreciation. Telling them they must do something they consider wrong in the eyes of God will not reform their system or beliefs, but rather shut down their free service, which is a shame.

Ajax

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Tom "Don C" Hagen has the right of it.

Forced to choose between obeying a civil law and ignoring their own beliefs, most Catholic agencies would opt out of an activity.

These Catholic adoption agencies have no right to disregard a duly promulgated law of the land. Nor can that same government force them to continue their activities in a fashion that runs against their own beliefs.

Result: an increase in business for non-Catholic adoption agencies. Also, I would suspect, an increase in cost to the consumer -- though I have no hard data to back up that last statement.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But to say "we won't let gays adopt any children" is just wrong.

From your point of view, from a Catholic point of view it is wrong to allow Gays to adopt. Since both are moral stances the government should not interfere. It has and is therefore legislating for one morality and against the other.


Really? I don't know that that's true. Divorce rates are huge. Being married doesn't seem to guarantee stability.

I'd bet that break-ups among unmarried couples are higher and a partner is usually more likely to scarper than a husband. It has happened where I live and the wife is left litterally holding the baby.


That's not true. There is no evidence to support that. Children raised by same sex couples are just as well adjusted (or disfunctional) statistically as those raised by hetero couples.

It is well known that children need rolemodels in order to identify with others. Without my father I would look to my Grandfather, without him I would look to other older men, but then I'm looking outside the family. Besides, any study which showed that same-sex couples might be at all worse would be decried as homophobic and locked away. So it's not actually possible to get realistic statistics.


The determining factor is not the sex of the parents, but the quality of the parenting.

So having NO male role models would have no affect on a boy's developement.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It's a complex issue, and I need to hear more from the involved parties to be able to judge.

But I do find it remarkably ironic that in the United Kingdom, it wasn't that long ago that catholics required an Act of Parliament to force the general population to recognise their own rights and emancipation. For quite some while, they were the "morally aberrant" ones.

:no:

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, and that had something to do with our long history of wars with Catholic countries and issues with catholic monarchs. I don't think that something as modern as morals were used, they just didn't have any rights. Pitt the Younger tried to force emancipation, but King George refused as it would have forced him to recind his coronation oaths.

Since these issues are probably older than the USA is, it's hardly the most relevant comparison.

~:smoking:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes, and that had something to do with our long history of wars with Catholic countries and issues with catholic monarchs. I don't think that something as modern as morals were used, they just didn't have any rights. Pitt the Younger tried to force emancipation, but King George refused as it would have forced him to recind his coronation oaths.

Sinec these issues are probably older than the USA is, it's hardly the most relevant comparison.


:inquisitive:

It was first and foremost a religious and therefore a moral circumstance. Moral theology is hardly a modern invention.

And if you think the issues caused by discrimination against catholics are not relevant, try visiting a funny little place called Northern Ireland (or even Glasgow) - or ask your Prince William who he is entitled to marry.

[Duke of Gloucester]

This one has all the ingredients of a backroom topic. Religion, gays, liberal legislation........



http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6289301.stm



There's a surprise!

Just who do the Catholics think they are? Whether you agree with the legislation or not, it is about to become the law of the land. Passed by a, barely, democratically elected government. Perhaps I should ask for an exemptment from, say, the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 and then pay a visit to Kelly and Blair. :whip:

I suspect that Catholics think they are the same as everyone else - citizens in a country free to express opinions about laws, those already in force and those about to come in to force and like everyone else in the land entitled to freedom on conscience within the law.

I read the article very carefully and I see no call for Catholics to disobey the law. I also took the trouble to read the Cardinal's letter to check what he is asking for. I suspected that the BBC was wrong in saying that it was against Catholic teaching to place children with gay people and if you check the text you will see that the Catholic Church has no difficulty in placing children with single people who happen to be gay; the difficulty arises with homosexual couples. The Cardinal's position is that if and when the law came in to effect as it is, Catholic adoption agencies would have to close rather than be forced to do something that is against the law.

Lord Falconer is quite entitled to express his view that: "".......as a society that we should not discriminate against people who are homosexual, you cannot give exclusions for people on the grounds that their religion or their race says we don't agree with that." but he cannot expect people to continue to run things like adoption agencies if they feel they will be forced to act in a way that they consider immoral. In fact in other debates about this law it has been said that nobody will be forced to act against their consciences; if they don't want to place children with gay couples for adoptions or allow those with civil partnerships to share double beds in their hotels they should cease providing adoption services or leave the catering industry. Now the Catholic Church say they will do this and it is suddenly "blackmail".

It is quite consistent to condemn the church's beliefs and criticise Catholics for holding them but to suggest that they do not have the right to question laws or to opt out of providing services on a matter of conscience is not just.



Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Yes, and that had something to do with our long history of wars with Catholic countries and issues with catholic monarchs. I don't think that something as modern as morals were used, they just didn't have any rights. Pitt the Younger tried to force emancipation, but King George refused as it would have forced him to recind his coronation oaths.

Sinec these issues are probably older than the USA is, it's hardly the most relevant comparison.



It was first and foremost a religious and therefore a moral circumstance. Moral theology is hardly a modern invention.

In fact the decision to obey one's conscience rather than the law was the dilemma that Thomas More felt he faced, although in his case, the issue was more theological truth than social teaching.


And if you think the issues caused by discrimination against catholics are not relevant, try visiting a funny little place called Northern Ireland (or even Glasgow) -

In these places discrimination works both ways. Catholics discriminate against Protestants, so they are not really victims except in the sense that they are in the minority (slightly)


or ask your Prince William who he is entitled to marry.


Any law that keeps my daughters from marrying in to that dysfunctional family is to be applauded.

[Goofball]

The determining factor is not the sex of the parents, but the quality of the parenting.I think you're half right here, and on the important half no less. But as a parent, you know that children learn by emulation. How can a young man learn to be a man from two man-hating lesbians?

Yes, quality of parenting would be higher on my list of priorities then having a gender role model. And at the end of the day, I personally think 2 loving homosexuals in a committed relationship would probably do a fine job and the kid should be thankful for the adoption, period. But we're not arguing my views here. We're arguing whether the government has the right to step in and force a religion to change its dogma. I say no.

And I guarantee that if there's Islamic adoption agencies in the UK, they will get to opt-out. Nothing against muslims, that's a swipe at autocratic PC politicians that don't even wear a fig-leaf of governing on principle.

You know, it's funny. Whenever you and I start discussing this issue, it looks like we are far apart at the beginning, but as the discussion funnels down, we appear to be singing from the same songsheet.

I agree. Two man-hating lesbians would not be fit parents. Not because they are lesbians, but because they hate men simply for being men. "Lesbian" and "man-hating" are not an automatic mix. There are also plenty of heterosexual men who really hate women. And many of them marry women and have children, and raise sons who carry on the tradition of hating and disrespecting women. These men are also unfit parents. Hetero/homo has nothing to do with it.

And I also agree that the government has no place legislating what religious organizations should or should not do.

Like I said, if the Catholic agencies in question are not government funded, they should be able to refuse to do business with whomever they want.

[BDC]

From your point of view, from a Catholic point of view it is wrong to allow Gays to adopt. Since both are moral stances the government should not interfere. It has and is therefore legislating for one morality and against the other.

No, from one point of view discriminating against people is wrong, from the Catholic point of view it's fine.

[GoreBag]

It's a complex issue, and I need to hear more from the involved parties to be able to judge.

But I do find it remarkably ironic that in the United Kingdom, it wasn't that long ago that catholics required an Act of Parliament to force the general population to recognise their own rights and emancipation. For quite some while, they were the "morally aberrant" ones.

:no:

This is the part I didn't understand. Catholic church...in England? If the Catholic church wants to close its orphanages, can't the government just order it to turn them over to the presumably more dominant Anglican church and stick it to the Papists?

[KukriKhan]

From the Cardinal's letter (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6290073.stm) to Blair & Co:


...Our agencies receive fees from local authorities directly linked to their adoption work. In addition they are supported generally by the Catholic Church community.

He makes an impassioned plea, and points out that RC Adoption Agencies arrange 34% of UK's toughest placements.

However, IMO, they're gonna have to give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's here. Either refuse the gov't coin and do as they like, or take the money and comply with law.

Anyone know what size population we are talking about here - how many prospective adoptees are there, on average?

[DukeofSerbia]

I am sorry, but giving adoption rights to gays is definetely not acceptable from catholic point of view. The same could be said about many other problems such as euthanasia (sp ?) - if in the future hospitals will be obliged to allow this kind of 'solution', private, catholic clinics included - the only thing left would be closing them as well.

The same for Orthodox Churches. I agree. :2thumbsup:

[Goofball]

But to say "we won't let gays adopt any children" is just wrong.From your point of view, from a Catholic point of view it is wrong to allow Gays to adopt. Since both are moral stances the government should not interfere. It has and is therefore legislating for one morality and against the other.

You are right, and I should have been more clear. I believe what the Catholics are doing is bigoted, plain and simple, but that is my opinion and nothing more. However, I support their right to do it as long as they are not funded by public $$.



Really? I don't know that that's true. Divorce rates are huge. Being married doesn't seem to guarantee stability.I'd bet that break-ups among unmarried couples are higher and a partner is usually more likely to scarper than a husband. It has happened where I live and the wife is left litterally holding the baby.

I don't think so. I think it has more to do with how long the couple has been together, how old they are, whether they have children, whether they own property together, and many other factors.

Especially in countries where common law spouses are treated the same under the law as married couples, the piece of paper really makes little difference when it comes to couples staying together or not.

I know plenty of couples who have lived as common law spouses for as long as many married couples I know. In fact, I bet there are more of them walking around out there than you think. There is a couple I have known for ten years now, who were together ten years before I even met them. I only recently found out they're not actually married.



That's not true. There is no evidence to support that. Children raised by same sex couples are just as well adjusted (or disfunctional) statistically as those raised by hetero couples.It is well known that children need rolemodels in order to identify with others.

Agreed. But as with parenting, it's not the sex of the role models that matters, but the quality of them.


Without my father I would look to my Grandfather, without him I would look to other older men, but then I'm looking outside the family.

Maybe that's what you would do. But there is no evidence to suggest that even if you couldn't find a same sex role model you would grow up to be maladjusted.


Besides, any study which showed that same-sex couples might be at all worse would be decried as homophobic and locked away. So it's not actually possible to get realistic statistics.

Translation: You searched, but couldn't find any evidence to support your claim, therefor it must be part of some grand gay conspiracy. As we all know, gays are the most powerful underground society in the world, and in the U.S. in particular. They engineered putting Bush in the White House in order to lull us all into a false sense of security. They also caused dozens of states recently to legislate against or constitutionally ban gay marriage. It's all part of their grand (or should I say "fabulous":cheerleader: ) plan.

Gimme a break.



The determining factor is not the sex of the parents, but the quality of the parenting.So having NO male role models would have no affect on a boy's developement.

There is a big difference between not growing up with a father and having no male role models. I have plenty of male role models and I grew up with a father.

But yes, if a boy were raised completely by women in a cloistered, female-only society, and was never exposed to other males at all while growing up, then he might have trouble relating to men later in life.

But I would imagine that simply going to school, playing a sport, making friends outside of the home, or taking part in any number of activities that other kids take part in should solve that problem.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Children need same-sex role models. A boy with two mothers will have trouble relating to other men, unless he finds a role model outside his family.


I think you're half right here, and on the important half no less. But as a parent, you know that children learn by emulation. How can a young man learn to be a man from two man-hating lesbians?


The "he must learn to be a man" sentiment implies that there is more to being a man than being an adult male. The fact is that everyone learns to be an adult once they leave their parents and go out on their own. Some at earlier ages than others. Parents should help there children become mature, the children will be as masculine or as feminine as they are.

I think it's very telling that you never hear "But if she goes up with two gay men, how can she learn to be a woman?".

Some people just get so offended by the idea of a man not acting "manly".

[doc_bean]

Interesting arguement. What about the staunchly Catholic child that gets placed with a gay couple because his shoddy agency let him down. Cuts both ways.

If you believe something is morally wrong then the law should not be able to force you to do it.

That's the problem isn't it ? Children don't make many moral judgements, society has to do it for them. I think the best way to set 'standards' is the democratic way, with the same standards used for placement of children by all agencies.

[Don Corleone]

I think it's very telling that you never hear "But if she goes up with two gay men, how can she learn to be a woman?".

Some people just get so offended by the idea of a man not acting "manly".

Actually, I would make this argument. Two gay guys don't know the first thing about what it feels like to get your period the first time. How are they going to help a girl through that? Look, it may be very fashionable to claim that there are no developmental differences between adolescant males and females, but I don't buy it, and science is on my side.

[Husar]

The "he must learn to be a man" sentiment implies that there is more to being a man than being an adult male. The fact is that everyone learns to be an adult once they leave their parents and go out on their own. Some at earlier ages than others. Parents should help there children become mature, the children will be as masculine or as feminine as they are.

I think it's very telling that you never hear "But if she goes up with two gay men, how can she learn to be a woman?".

Some people just get so offended by the idea of a man not acting "manly".
Are you saying that the surroundings, society and parents have no impact at all on the development of a kid? Are you kidding?:inquisitive: :help:

[Goofball]

Actually, I would make this argument. Two gay guys don't know the first thing about what it feels like to get your period the first time. How are they going to help a girl through that? Look, it may be very fashionable to claim that there are no developmental differences between adolescant males and females, but I don't buy it, and science is on my side.

Bit of a red herring (pun intended) there TH. You don't need to have had a period to comfort your daughter when she has her first one, or to explain to her what is happening with her body, or even to tell her how to use the various feminine products available to her. You just need to have read a book or two and be a good listener/hugger.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Are you saying that the surroundings, society and parents have no impact at all on the development of a kid? Are you kidding?:inquisitive: :help:

No? ~:confused:



Actually, I would make this argument. Two gay guys don't know the first thing about what it feels like to get your period the first time. How are they going to help a girl through that? Look, it may be very fashionable to claim that there are no developmental differences between adolescant males and females, but I don't buy it, and science is on my side.

What do you mean by developmental? The period thing is pretty trivial.

[Watchman]

I would imagine two gay guys have about as good chances of having an idea about how to deal with the first period as a single father, you know. And both can always consult female relatives, friends and suchlike and/or appropriate official advisory sources if need be.
Red herrings get thrown to the lions. :rtwno:

As far as role models go, Daddy Dearest is not automatically the best one around (if he's even that, anyway). I know mine's mainly good for a cautionary example (as in, "don't become an ass like him"); the mother of my kid half-brother (who incidentally booted Dad out of her house even sooner than my mom did, and for very good resons) once told me *I* am the "reassuring reliable father-figure" role-model for the little guy...

[Mooks]

I will say one thing on the matter. If people at my school discovered I had 2 gay male parents (They probaly wouldnt care about female) they would ridicule me beyond belief. The jokes wouldnt stop. People would describe me instead of "The tall skinny fellow" as the "Guy that has 2 gay parents".

[Papewaio]

It was first and foremost a religious and therefore a moral circumstance. Moral theology is hardly a modern invention.


Sorry I do not think that something that what is religious is automatically moral.

A set of ideas is not made moral by tacking the word religion to it.

[Papewaio]

Actually, I would make this argument. Two gay guys don't know the first thing about what it feels like to get your period the first time. How are they going to help a girl through that? Look, it may be very fashionable to claim that there are no developmental differences between adolescant males and females, but I don't buy it, and science is on my side.

What exactly is science saying on this issue?

I have heard that females develop quicker when there are more males around. So it could be argued that having two male parents will assist the child to become functionally a women. If at least one of them is the sterotypical effeminate gay then at least he could relate to her better along shopping terms, gossip etc. Also when it comes to Miss 16 year old... imagine the test the new boyfriend has to go through... two Dads sitting on the porch cleaning their shotguns and one of them in leather riding chaps. :laugh4:

[Mooks]

. Also when it comes to Miss 16 year old... imagine the test the new boyfriend has to go through... two Dads sitting on the porch cleaning their shotguns and one of them in leather riding chaps. :laugh4:

I dont know what your talking about. Please explain.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Make that patent leather a**less chaps to really get the young man's attention.~:wacko:

[Dave1984]

I dunno, I think that looking at me and my brother, for instance, tells a decent story. I grew up and my dad was there, my brother (much younger than me) grew up and the old man was gone. Now, me and my brother developed just fine, and we're incredibly similar in alot of ways, but he has more of a temper on him, but at the same time I'd say he was easily more mature than me.
So I think that the influence of a father can have an effect but it is not automatically a negative one, as much as it is not automatically a positive one.
It's just a different one, the same as everything else in life.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are right, and I should have been more clear. I believe what the Catholics are doing is bigoted, plain and simple, but that is my opinion and nothing more. However, I support their right to do it as long as they are not funded by public $$.

We are then in total agreement on how the law should be applied.


I don't think so. I think it has more to do with how long the couple has been together, how old they are, whether they have children, whether they own property together, and many other factors.

I'm speaking from my own experience, but, as Banquo has pointed out, I live in Devon. Even if I'm not "local."


I know plenty of couples who have lived as common law spouses for as long as many married couples I know. In fact, I bet there are more of them walking around out there than you think. There is a couple I have known for ten years now, who were together ten years before I even met them. I only recently found out they're not actually married.

I admit I know some also, I know many more, with children, who have split up.


Agreed. But as with parenting, it's not the sex of the role models that matters, but the quality of them.

Dissagree, if you want to be able to relate to men in general you need a male role model. My father is an excellent example of manly virtue, honour etc. but he's pretty bad at comunicating, so I defaulted to my mother and being stuck out on a farm I developed without a close role-model, except for my grandfather who I saw infrequently. As a result when I did go out into the world beyond primary school I was dysfunctional and unable to relate to men very well. Not only did this mean I was often mocked it left me with few friends and very low self esteem.

I finally found my male role-models when I joined the school's cadet detachment and I was fortunate that some of them took me under their wing. A year of that got my functioning and another five years left me fairly well adjusted, but only externally. I empathise with the female view of men but not the male view of women.

As a result nearly all my close friends are women, or men similarly mal-adjusted.


Maybe that's what you would do. But there is no evidence to suggest that even if you couldn't find a same sex role model you would grow up to be maladjusted.

See above.


Translation: You searched, but couldn't find any evidence to support your claim, therefor it must be part of some grand gay conspiracy. As we all know, gays are the most powerful underground society in the world, and in the U.S. in particular. They engineered putting Bush in the White House in order to lull us all into a false sense of security. They also caused dozens of states recently to legislate against or constitutionally ban gay marriage. It's all part of their grand (or should I say "fabulous":cheerleader: ) plan.

Gimme a break.

No, all I'm saying is that no one will produce a fair test because they don't want the results to suggest same-sex parenting is in any way negative. It's not even concious. It's just like no one ever doing a serious survey of racial intelligence, they might find out that black people are less intelligent, worse they might be more intelligent and then the liberals would actually have to look at the reasons why crime is generally higher in black areas.

[qutoe]There is a big difference between not growing up with a father and having no male role models. I have plenty of male role models and I grew up with a father.[/quote]

Bully for you.


But yes, if a boy were raised completely by women in a cloistered, female-only society, and was never exposed to other males at all while growing up, then he might have trouble relating to men later in life.

I present myself as exibit A.


But I would imagine that simply going to school, playing a sport, making friends outside of the home, or taking part in any number of activities that other kids take part in should solve that problem.

Well I went to school and my early disadvantage meant I couldn't mix, so I didn't pick it up. No starting point.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

There is so much to this issue, that until you really know the ins and outs (pretty funny huh?) of it all, then its hard to work it all out, as your guess based on your own experiences.

Firstly i live in the part of sydney with more lesbians per captia in australia. Having seen some same sex female couples with children (mostly girls), that it melts my heart to see how many of them are great parents, and just wonderful with the kids. even my most retarded, backwards and homophobic (read shire) mates are taken back by just how good they are together...

The other point, is leave your stereotypes at home, i know gay guys that make me @ 105 KG 197cm /235lbs and 6"4' look like a pansy. i couldn't picture more masculine looking guys. Same can be said for lesbians, my next door neighbors are gorgeous girls, long hair just like any other straight girl, except they are gay, and have been together since high school (i think they are like 26ish), if they had kids or adopted, i think it would be awesome.

The idea that guys can't help or talk to a girl when she is developing is complete rubbish. My mate, has a niece, when she had her first period, he threw her a party and made it in to a big deal, in a good way, he was also their to shop with her and make sure she knew what was going on, i don't think a women could of handled it better...

Also most of the gay people around my house have a great big mix of friends that include both sexes both gay and straight, so there is plenty of role models, also the group take a role in helping out with the kids, i.e the guys with take the little boy out to the football or play cricket with him...

men and women don't make good parents, good people that are good with kids and understanding, that make time to make sure the kid is looked after make good parent.



The Catholic Church's agencies are said to handle 4%, or about 200, of all adoptions a year. However they handle about a third of those children judged difficult to place.

4% = 200
1% = 50
100% = 5000


But Peter Smith, the Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff, said it cost agencies about £20,000 to select and train each family to adopt.

The government then repaid the money if a local authority agreed to a couple's suitability.

so the church isn't footing the bill to find people to adopt the kids, the government is. Which would mean, the church fund it themselves or play nice. I think the churches should get the same treatment as everyone else, and making exceptions for such a small minority of the total adoptions (4%) is insane.

[Slyspy]

I should point out that the government is not legislating on what a religious denomination may or may not do, but on what adoption agencies may or may not do.

If the Catholic church wishes to run adoption agencies then, in the event of these new ideas becoming law, they must abide by them or cease to run those agencies. They themselves have said as much, and it is both right and proper.

The State rules the Church here, not the other way around. The former sets the laws and the latter must obey or change (in the past, of course, they have also fought). Any exemption for Catholic agencies will, in my view, reverse this order in a way which leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

[Soulforged]

Dissagree, if you want to be able to relate to men in general you need a male role model. My father is an excellent example of manly virtue, honour etc. but he's pretty bad at comunicating, so I defaulted to my mother and being stuck out on a farm I developed without a close role-model, except for my grandfather who I saw infrequently. As a result when I did go out into the world beyond primary school I was dysfunctional and unable to relate to men very well. Not only did this mean I was often mocked it left me with few friends and very low self esteem.You're wrong on two levels Ironwall. First you're oversimplifying the impact of external influences on your character. You cannot know with certainty what influence formed what feature, you're not an external overseer of what has happened and is happening in your life, so linking cause and effect in the manner that you just did is not correct. You can, however, assume as much as you want. Now about those assumptions, I suspect you really don't want to imply that "manly" virtues come from man only and viceversa, that will mean that the sexual transformation from hetero to homo has no profound bearing on the subjects, wich is ridiculous. On the other hand I really don't believe you are saying that honour is a men virtue only and that of a fluent communicator pertains to the female gamma. You're also forgetting about genes, wich determines our tendencies up to a certain point.
About a general picture on the subject of adoption there's only a type of study wich serves a generic purpose: an stadistical study. If you do a quick search you'll find a lot of studies saying that there's no "bad" influence and some saying there is, other pointing that there's no special influence. However I've found the latter the most accurate. That's if we want the facts.
Beyond the facts, and on the moral ground, this subject is far more simplier if we assume some premises. First we've to assume that being homosexual is not bad, and second we've to assume that everyone is entitled to his choice. Now even if homosexual parenting had any special influence on the development of children, this developments should be treated separately. So we cannot jugde solely on the existence of special influences, these influence have to be bad on their own and have to be unavoidable. For example: if this kind of parenting prooved to make children more likely to choose same sex partners, then, on the same logic, we cannot say that this is a bad influence, in spite of it being an special one.

No, all I'm saying is that no one will produce a fair test because they don't want the results to suggest same-sex parenting is in any way negative. It's not even concious. It's just like no one ever doing a serious survey of racial intelligence, they might find out that black people are less intelligent, worse they might be more intelligent and then the liberals would actually have to look at the reasons why crime is generally higher in black areas.
Well perhaps you'll be surprised by the objectivity of scientists. ~;)

[AntiochusIII]

I will say one thing on the matter. If people at my school discovered I had 2 gay male parents (They probaly wouldnt care about female) they would ridicule me beyond belief. The jokes wouldnt stop. People would describe me instead of "The tall skinny fellow" as the "Guy that has 2 gay parents".So if I'm a bigoted bullying bastard and I choose to pick this lil' gay boy in school for whatever crap excuse I make up (gay parents! gay boy! he smells! he's just an annoying smarty pants!), society punishes the victim and takes his rights away.

Awesome.

[Redleg]

From the Cardinal's letter (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6290073.stm) to Blair & Co:



He makes an impassioned plea, and points out that RC Adoption Agencies arrange 34% of UK's toughest placements.

However, IMO, they're gonna have to give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's here. Either refuse the gov't coin and do as they like, or take the money and comply with law.

Anyone know what size population we are talking about here - how many prospective adoptees are there, on average?

100% agree, the private institution that takes money from the government must abide by the laws and regulations of that government. The Catholic Church must either comply or refuse all government assistance.

[Xiahou]

100% agree, the private institution that takes money from the government must abide by the laws and regulations of that government. The Catholic Church must either comply or refuse all government assistance.
Either way, it'll be the children who are hurt by this- gotta love that. :shame:

[Redleg]

Either way, it'll be the children who are hurt by this- gotta love that. :shame:

Yes indeed its always the children that suffer in these instance. Having stated that a private institution that takes money from the government has to abide by the rules regarding that money.

For instance State funded Universities have to allow ROTC and Military Recruiters onto their campus for the exact same reason. The Federal government provides them money. Same thing happened at the Military Academies back in the late 1970's in regards to women. To include several of the private ones - why because they really weren't private because they were given money by the Federal Government for the ROTC programs contained within the school. (To include military officers and NCOs for instructors.)

[Papewaio]

However, IMO, they're gonna have to give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's here. Either refuse the gov't coin and do as they like, or take the money and comply with law.


I thought give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's applied not only to obeying the tax laws of the land, but all laws of the land.

I still don't see how even if they are a private company that they could operate outside the law of the land. It's not like a private business can shoot their employees because they don't get any government money.

Surely if the law of the land said 'no abortions'a private clinic would have to obey that too?

If they close the adoption centers then they are the ones acting as dogs in the manger.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Sorry I do not think that something that what is religious is automatically moral.

A set of ideas is not made moral by tacking the word religion to it.

That's not what I meant. Religions deal with morals - they attempt to provide moral frameworks. Whether one agrees with these moral ideas or accept the religion provides legitimacy is another matter. But the conflict between religions is often based on different views on what is moral.

Sorry for not being clear. :beam:


I still don't see how even if they are a private company that they could operate outside the law of the land. It's not like a private business can shoot their employees because they don't get any government money.

Surely if the law of the land said 'no abortions'a private clinic would have to obey that too?

That's an excellent point in the context. If the Church got her way on outlawing abortion, would she be keen on private exemptions to the law on the basis of personal conviction or conscience?

[caravel]

My father is an excellent example of manly virtue, honour etc. but he's pretty bad at comunicating, so I defaulted to my mother and being stuck out on a farm I developed without a close role-model, except for my grandfather who I saw infrequently. As a result when I did go out into the world beyond primary school I was dysfunctional and unable to relate to men very well. Not only did this mean I was often mocked it left me with few friends and very low self esteem.
I'm the opposite to that. Mainly in contact with my father and not having much to do with my mother, who is a very quiet disciplined woman that hardly ever leaves the house and has been like this pretty much all her life. Because of this I find it difficult to relate to women, I dislike feminine things, I hate jewellery, shopping and dress rather scruffily. My conversation, offline, is abrupt, minimal and no nonsense. My cousins are totally different. They were mainly around their mother growing up, their father not being around much due to working long hours, spending a lot of time in the pub and not being very conversational, nor engaging in any activities with them. As a result they speak in a somewhat more feminine manner (I don't mean camp, but it is perceptible), they are also much more "chatty" a trait that I find irritating, curious and gossipy. None of them are, AFAIK, gay though so I don't believe it has any bearing whatsoever on their sexuality. I view this as some indication of the theory that the gender of a parent influencing a child's development.

Back to the gay adoptions: Bad parents come in all forms. There are single parents that do a good job and male and female parents that do a terrible job. In some cases the single parentage is not a choice but a turn of fate, i.e. abandonment or death. Another valid point that many here have dismissed is the outside perception, which is always important in every aspect of life, and the very real possibility of bullying. Personally I would not like to be in the position of having two gay dads, plain and simple. Bullying is bad enough in schools in the UK without adding to the problem. Unfortunately for kids perceptions do count a lot, more so than in the adult world. The law of the playground is very different to the law. If having the wrong brand of trainers can get you verbally abused, then I'm sure that having homosexual parents could get you beaten up. I've no doubt that the loony left would advocate producing booklets to promote tolerance - at the expense of the taxpayer - to explain to the little dears that a child with gay parents should not be called "botty boy" and get beaten up, shunned and verbally abused on a daily basis, and this would work of course, like asbos work...... too many laws in this country. :inquisitive:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

However, IMO, they're gonna have to give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's here. Either refuse the gov't coin and do as they like, or take the money and comply with law.

Even if they do refuse government, money, they'll still be breaking the law. This isn't about them having to follow governmental policy in order to receive their funding, it's about them having to comply with our new law which states you can't discriminate in the provision of goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

[GoreBag]

Sorry I do not think that something that what is religious is automatically moral.

A set of ideas is not made moral by tacking the word religion to it.

This only applies if there is only one true sense of morality, which is obviously false. Granted, you might have meant, and it is safe to assume, that you meant that it isn't 'moral to you' or 'moral in your opinion', but that point is also moot since you're not the one on trial here.

[KukriKhan]

... it's about them having to comply with our new law which states you can't discriminate in the provision of goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

Assuming the new law states exactly that, I see your point, and cannot disagree.

Does this, in your opinion, imply or predict, that faith-based adoption agencies will opt-out of providing those services - leading to the gov't having to assume them, to fill the gap?

Or will there just be more un-adopted orphans languishing in (where? orphanages? foster families?)?

[The Black Ship]

Even if they do refuse government, money, they'll still be breaking the law. This isn't about them having to follow governmental policy in order to receive their funding, it's about them having to comply with our new law which states you can't discriminate in the provision of goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

Doesn't that mean that your government has just mandated gay marriage too? Surely marriage rites are a service of the Church. :book:

[English assassin]

Does
this, in your opinion, imply or predict, that faith-based adoption agencies will opt-out of providing those services - leading to the gov't having to assume them, to fill the gap?

Possibly. In breaking news, the Church of England seems to have discovered that it does believe in something, and has now joined the catholics.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2563054,00.html

How they square this sentiment, that the government is "seeking, quite properly, better to defend the rights of a particular group not to be discriminated against" with the demand to be allowed, err, to discriminate against that group, I don't quite know. I also felt that "It is vitally important that the interests of vulnerable children are not relegated to suit any political interest" was a curious claim seeing as it apparently is all right that the interests of vulnerable children are relegated to suit a religious interest?

But then logic isn't the faith based community's strongest suit.

They seem to me to be on stronger ground to say that matters of conscience cannot be the subject of legislation, although we would just have to hope that no one feels that, say, preventing inter-race marriages is a matter of conscience. (Yeah yeah, I know, sounds ridiculous. Tell it to the victim of an honour killing)

On reflection, where this one went wrong was by allowing anyone other than the adoptive child to have rights in these cases. One simple principle; that the decisions must be made in the best interests of the child, and absolutely everyone else can go hang, and the debate would go away.

[Scurvy]

100% agree, the private institution that takes money from the government must abide by the laws and regulations of that government. The Catholic Church must either comply or refuse all government assistance.

:yes:

I have not been impressed by the actions of the CoE or the Catholic Church on this, if they want to argue over the matter fine, but using children in this way isnt all that good :shame:



Possibly. In breaking news, the Church of England seems to have discovered that it does believe in something, and has now joined the catholics.

:laugh:

--> I dont think gay parents would be worse than any others, many mixed parents are incopetant, as are single sparents etc.. i dont belive the gender of parents would affect a child development, there are many examples of single parents of both gender bringng up socially well-rounded kids. The problem for me would be the playground atmosphere, interestingly there was recently a stabbing of an apparently "gay" pupil at my school recently (fairly low key) but if this indicates the current attitudes then gay parents would perhaps not be such a good idea... i dont think "not" allowing gay couples is right, but perhaps more time is needed to let societies attitudes change is needed... :2thumbsup:

[Duke of Gloucester]

How they square this sentiment, that the government is "seeking, quite properly, better to defend the rights of a particular group not to be discriminated against" with the demand to be allowed, err, to discriminate against that group, I don't quite know. I also felt that "It is vitally important that the interests of vulnerable children are not relegated to suit any political interest" was a curious claim seeing as it apparently is all right that the interests of vulnerable children are relegated to suit a religious interest?

An interesting spin to put on the situation. The Catholic Church does not gain or lose by running adoption agencies except, perhaps in the sense that it gives them an opportunity to serve those in need which is what they ought to be doing. If the interests of vulnerable children are harmed, it won't be to serve a religious interest, more a religious sensibility.


But then logic isn't the faith based community's strongest suit.

If anything the Catholic church is logical to a fault, and this is an example of extreme logic.

Premise 1: Homosexual acts are immoral
Premise 2: Giving support to immorallity is immoral too.
Premise 3: Allowing a homosexual couple to adopt supports their relationship

Conclusion: Supporting adoption by a homosexual couple is immoral.

Don't confuse lack of logic with basing your original premises on things other than scientific evidence.

It is perfectly logical. In fact it would be better if the Church had an emotional response to the issue and said "forget the logic of the situation - these children need care so lets just comply with the law and continue to place difficult children."


They seem to me to be on stronger ground to say that matters of conscience cannot be the subject of legislation, although we would just have to hope that no one feels that, say, preventing inter-race marriages is a matter of conscience. (Yeah yeah, I know, sounds ridiculous. Tell it to the victim of an honour killing)

It is perfectly acceptable for a state to legislate to prevent citizens from doing something that the community considers unacceptable. It is harder to justify forcing people to do something in order to fit in with the community values. Therefore the Catholic church can be told not to discriminate against homosexual couples in placing children for adoption, but they can't be forced to run adoption agencies. To use the inter-race marriage analogy you can pass a law to stop people disrupting inter race marriage, but you can't force them to attend an inter-race ceremony if they don't want to.

One thing I am trying to understand is why, when this Act was passed almost 12 months ago, there is still a discussion about changing it. I have no legal training at all, but I did find the text of the Equality Act 2006 here:

Equality Act 2006 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/20060003.htm)

I did not read the whole thing, but I did scroll down to find the bit that referred to sexual orientation. It does not say anything specific, just:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about discrimination or harassment on grounds of sexual orientation."
In other words, the Secretary of State can say the law is whatever he wants it to be at any time. No wonder people are seeing this as a live issue still.

[Duke of Gloucester]

I have not been impressed by the actions of the CoE or the Catholic Church on this, if they want to argue over the matter fine, but using children in this way isnt all that good

How can you argue about the adoption of children without involving the children. The statement that children are being "used" is your interpretation of the motives of those involved.


I dont think gay parents would be worse than any others, many mixed parents are incopetant, as are single sparents etc.. i dont belive the gender of parents would affect a child development, there are many examples of single parents of both gender bringng up socially well-rounded kids. The problem for me would be the playground atmosphere, interestingly there was recently a stabbing of an apparently "gay" pupil at my school recently (fairly low key) but if this indicates the current attitudes then gay parents would perhaps not be such a good idea... i dont think "not" allowing gay couples is right, but perhaps more time is needed to let societies attitudes change is needed...

The Catholic church is not making any statement about whether same-sex couples make good parents or not, neither is it saying that they should not be allowed to adopt. It is just saying that they do not want place children with gay couples. If a gay couple approach a Catholic adoption agency, they don't say "be off gay scum" they say "I am sorry. We don't place children with same-sex couples, but here is a list of agencies that do." Many people would find this offensive, but it is not the same as denying same sex couples the right to adopt.

[Scurvy]

The statement that children are being "used" is your interpretation of the motives of those involved.

:yes:

[Duke of Gloucester]

Does your belief that Catholic clergy are involved in some sort of plot which will harm children betray your own prejudices at all?

[Scurvy]

Does your belief that Catholic clergy are involved in some sort of plot which will harm children betray your own prejudices at all?

:yes: --> i think i am generally prejudice against religious intervention in such things, although not necessarily against the church itself, (i have only read fairly one-sided media stuff on this)



it is not the same as denying same sex couples the right to adopt.

I think it is, but i have nothing against it, at this time, my annoyance is with the church for there methods of influencing the government (i'v seen it refferred too as a sort of blackmail)

:2thumbsup:

sorry for any lack of clarity... :2thumbsup:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I still don't see how even if they are a private company that they could operate outside the law of the land. It's not like a private business can shoot their employees because they don't get any government money.

Surely if the law of the land said 'no abortions'a private clinic would have to obey that too?

Quite so. If the Catholic dioceses in question were to continue operating adoption agencies in a manner that contravened the law of the land, they would clearly be in the wrong. Dislike for/belief in the immorality of a given law does not grant you the right to ignore it.


If they close the adoption centers then they are the ones acting as dogs in the manger.

No, they are responding in the only legal means possible that allows them to obey the law without contravening their moral stance.

Were an ice cream shop owner in Brighton to refuse to serve any person who was Maltese simply because he viewed anyone from Malta as being degenerates and undesirables, the law would view such a policy as discriminatory. The court would likely order the owner to desist such a policy and would allow anyone so discriminated against to bring suit against the owner for appropriate damages. Rather than serve Maltese, the owner chooses to close his business -- and this is within his rights.

The government can legitimately promulgate laws governing adoption practice and procedures. It can affirm the right/create law to allow same sex marriage. It can force an organization that recieves government funding to adhere to government policies in order to continue receiving said funding. It cannot force someone to continue in business when they no longer wish to do so -- not without being a totalitarian state.

[Devastatin Dave]

"Catholics deny gays right to adopt"
Man, well, DUH!!!!
IN other news, still no babies have been concived throught the rectum....

[Goofball]

"Catholics deny gays right to adopt"
Man, well, DUH!!!!
IN other news, still no babies have been concived throught the rectum....

But I know of one that was born that way...

~;p

[Duke of Gloucester]

:yes: --> i think i am generally prejudice against religious intervention in such things, although not necessarily against the church itself, (i have only read fairly one-sided media stuff on this)



I think it is, but i have nothing against it, at this time, my annoyance is with the church for there methods of influencing the government (i'v seen it refferred too as a sort of blackmail)

:2thumbsup:

sorry for any lack of clarity... :2thumbsup:

I think it is unfair to describe this as "intervention" since the Catholic Church is already running the adoption agencies. In the same way, the use of the word "blackmail" is unjust. The actions are entirely consistent with Catholic belief and could have been predicted by those drawing up the legislation. It is fine to criticise beliefs, but if you accept people right to hold beliefs, you can't criticise them for acting on them. Also if they are well published, suggestions that they are being used to influence government, rather than genuinely held, are difficult to sustain.

[Rameusb5]

I should point out that the government is not legislating on what a religious denomination may or may not do, but on what adoption agencies may or may not do.


Yes.


If the Catholic church sells milk and happens to believe that pasturization isn't moral, and the government passes a law that says that all milk being sold in the country must be pasturized (for the public good), it's clear that the Catholic church should be pasturizing their milk. (or going home).

How you feel about pasturization has nothing to do with it. It's to the public's benefit. I have alway been disturbed by the church's selective charity.


Discrimination is wrong, no matter how you want to argue it. A lot of people will defend discrimination if they happen to dislike what's being discriminated against, but any discrimination against themselves is somehow automatically bad.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Yes.


If the Catholic church sells milk and happens to believe that pasturization isn't moral, and the government passes a law that says that all milk being sold in the country must be pasturized (for the public good), it's clear that the Catholic church should be pasturizing their milk. (or going home).

How you feel about pasturization has nothing to do with it. It's to the public's benefit. I have alway been disturbed by the church's selective charity.


Discrimination is wrong, no matter how you want to argue it. A lot of people will defend discrimination if they happen to dislike what's being discriminated against, but any discrimination against themselves is somehow automatically bad.

To follow the analogy, the Catholic Church is being criticised for saying: "In that case we are going home."

Discrimination is a classic doubletalk word. If you think the thing being "discriminated" against is wrong, then it isn't discrimination. Who decides what is discrimination and what is using a sensible judgement?

[ajaxfetish]

Just to try to clarify the 'discrimination' issue. Discrimination as a concept is not inherently bad. We all discriminate on a daily basis, using all sorts of criteria. You don't hire every applicant to a job, you don't eat at every restaurant at once, you don't wear all your clothes simultaneously, etc. You must pick and choose, and this process is discrimination.

Discrimination becomes a bad thing when the criteria used to discriminate are morally wrong. For example, if your discrimination in hiring a job applicant is based on competence, willingness to abide by company policy, flexibility of scheduling, etc., then fine. If that same discrimination is based on gender, skin color, sexual orientation, etc., then we start running into problems.

The issue here is that the Catholic Church and the U.K. government do not share the same moral framework. I'm not going to comment on who is right and who is wrong because like probably all people I do not have an objective stance from which to judge the issue. I could say who I do and do not agree with, but that is beside the point. The thing to keep in mind when labelling policies as discriminatory or not is that you are buying into one or the other moral framework and your arguments will not make sense to those who do not share it.

Ajax

[Don Corleone]

Well put, Ajax.

[Don Corleone]

So, we're right back to square one. Does the government have the right to force morality on people? What if the government determined that not only the right to have an aboriton was a good thing, but abortions themselves were in the public good. Do they not then have the right to force people to bend to their morality? China, for example, could be said to be acting morally in enforcing their One-Child policy, and all those who decry it are bigoted and immoral, no?

I know this is going to send Goofball around his circuits, but I'd like to follow up with Pape on this one. You say that not only if they're accepting government funds, but religious institutions must come under the dominion of legal policy, across the board. Does that mean that churches that operate in Spain MUST perform homosexual marriages (homosexual marriage is recognized in Spain), or be in violation of the law?

[KrooK]

Good job Holy Church
Homosexualism is not normal behavior.
Normal behavior is family with mother and father - man and woman.
Sorry but normal education of child needs man and woman.
Otherwise there are always lacks into education.
Someone might tell that I forgot about lonely parents.
I didn't - lonely parents care about children alone but they show children that normal situation would be man/woman and child. Their situation is unnormal but if it changes, it changes only on normal.

2 homosexualist will be never educating children normally. This child has no
father or no mother.

Sorry but Holy Church did good job.

Gays should not be allowed to adopt.

[Mooks]

Religion comes before all else in my point of view.

[InsaneApache]

Even if that means a kid wallowing in local government care? :inquisitive:

[Watchman]

Homosexualism is not normal behavior.
Normal behavior is family with mother and father - man and woman.
Sorry but normal education of child needs man and woman.
Otherwise there are always lacks into education.
Someone might tell that I forgot about lonely parents.
I didn't - lonely parents care about children alone but they show children that normal situation would be man/woman and child. Their situation is unnormal but if it changes, it changes only on normal.

2 homosexualist will be never educating children normally. This child has no
father or no mother.:dozey: Since you seem to know so well what is "normal", and why it's so important, how about you tell us too ?

Oh yeah, and you're making baby Jesus cry.

[Don Corleone]

Interesting point, IA. Which hits on the crux of the matter... if you're doing society a favor, do you have the right to be discriminating in the way you do it?

If I put out a public grant for battered women's shelters, but I attach a caveat that any women allowed into my shelter must prove themselves to be drug-free or risk eviction, am I within my rights? Should the government force me to accept drug-using moms, and risk me closing the shelter down? Or should they tolerate my conditions, even though they disagree with them?

If I do close the shelter, I haven't taken anything away, I've stopped giving. Am I acting immorally? Are you morally required to continue to provide more than you are required to, when doing so violates your own principals?

I think the church is being rather small-minded here, surely two gay guys raising a girl, while not optimal, is better than the same girl being raised in an institution. But I'm not arguing that the church's position is right. I'm arguing that they have the right to do it.

[InsaneApache]

Maybe someone here could clarify something for me. Where in the NT does it state that homosexuality is a no-no? It's been quite some time since I read the bible but I don't recall Jesus ever saying that homosexuals are an abomination. Just wondering who decided they were, if Jesus did not.

[Don Corleone]

This is not relevant to the discussion at hand IA. It's the belief of the Roman Catholic church that it's wrong. The issue is the right of them to discriminate, based on their belief system, hence my drug-users/battered women example.

[InsaneApache]

With a bit of digging I came up with Paul in Romans.

Yes TH it might be slightly off topic but I was just trying to discover where this attitude towards homosexuals came from.

So if Jesus didn't say anything negative about homosexuals but some bloke a few hundred years later did, what has that to do with Jesus?

My view is that the best candidate for adopting children should be the only criteria here, regardless of age, skin colour, sexual orientation etc etc...

[Don Corleone]

Well, St. Paul's ministry was 20 years after the death of Jesus (he did get into that big fight with St. Peter, remember?) But I don't understand it either. It's not like Jesus plays favorites with sins. Okay, let's just assume homosexuality is a sin (and there's plenty of things Jesus assumed his audience knew were wrong that he didn't mention explictly, he didn't forbid child sacrafice or incest directly either). Jesus does say that sin is sin, and in unites all in defiance of God's will. There's no "not so bad' sins versus 'ooh, that one's awful" sins. Only we humans do that, because we focus on sin as behavior, not attitude and content of heart. Sin is the lack of fulfilling God's will to the best of your ability, and constantly scouring your conscience and checking your pre-conceived notions to make certain you're not complacent. As God's number one command is to love each other, any bigotry of any form is de facto sinful.

But again, very very off topic.This is about the right of free association, not whether homosexuality is really a sin or not.

[doc_bean]

This is not relevant to the discussion at hand IA. It's the belief of the Roman Catholic church that it's wrong. The issue is the right of them to discriminate, based on their belief system, hence my drug-users/battered women example.

Sigh, that's part of the problem with Catholicism. The church tends to adapt to its surroundings. Ever noticed how important Mary is in South America, while in Africa she's barely even mentioned. You'd think these people were following a different religion, but nope, all Catholic.

Of course, somewhere along the way, the Church caught on that being homophobic seemed damn close to having morals to some of the more conservative people in the wast. So they went ahead and made it one of their core issues, since what's the point of religion if it doesn't preach morals ? The thing with the catholic church is, they tend to assemble the choir and check out their interests before they start preaching to them. Even now, they have good reason to act homophobic, most 'liberals' who don't care about such things aren't the church going kind, a lot of people in the church are traditionalists, conservatives, and quite a few of them probably don't agree with this whole 'gay' thing. Not unlike some members of this board. It's of course vital for the church to keep these people on their side, otherwise they'd be preaching to entirely empty buildings.

Homophobia being an integral part of Catholicism ? Please, half the clergy is probably gay, the other half likely has more serious issues with their sexuality. A life of chastity is appealing to a certain kind of people, people who hate their own sexuality. Besides, the great Mother Church has covered up dozens of homosexual relationships of its priest (as well as heterosexual relationships and well, some far less moral 'relationships'), it's not doctrine, it's convinient and no religion does real-politik better than the good ol' Catholic church.

EDIT: congrats on your senior membership by the way don, I hadn't noticed yet, is it a recent promotion ?

[ajaxfetish]

Three things. First,


I think the church is being rather small-minded here, surely two gay guys raising a girl, while not optimal, is better than the same girl being raised in an institution. But I'm not arguing that the church's position is right. I'm arguing that they have the right to do it.
Pretty much my exact stance on the issue. The question of government money being used makes it more complex, and with that in mind they should certainly comply with the regulation. However, in practical terms that probably means the end of their services which I think is a shame.

Second, on Jesus' take on homosexuality, homosexuality is condemned several times in the letters of the new (Christian) testament, though I am unaware of Jesus making any personal comments on the matter. As Don pointed out, Jesus did not speak out against every sin in existence, so he was not necessarily in opposition to this standpoint. Furthermore, in spite of some Christian sects' claims to the contrary, I do not believe Jesus claims to have rendered insignificant the entire old (Hebrew) testament, which also contains numerous condemnations of homosexuality and which I think is given a higher status in Catholicism than in many protestant churches.

Third, Don's been a senior member for ages. Longer than I have, I think. :santa3: <--picture this guy minus the hat

Ajax

[Xiahou]

With a bit of digging I came up with Paul in Romans.

Yes TH it might be slightly off topic but I was just trying to discover where this attitude towards homosexuals came from.

So if Jesus didn't say anything negative about homosexuals but some bloke a few hundred years later did, what has that to do with Jesus?

My view is that the best candidate for adopting children should be the only criteria here, regardless of age, skin colour, sexual orientation etc etc...
It's not really hard to find an answer if you bother yourself to spend a few minutes looking....

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.The Catholic Church is not "homophobic" at all and homosexuals are allowed to be priests, nuns, ect, and I have no doubt that quite a few are. The problem with homosexual priests would come from those that are actively homosexual- of course there would be a somewhat similar problem with priests who are actively heterosexual.

[GoreBag]

"Catholics deny gays right to adopt"
Man, well, DUH!!!!
IN other news, still no babies have been concived throught the rectum....

Working on it.


So, we're right back to square one. Does the government have the right to force morality on people?

They have the "right" to force whatever they can. Their purpose is to govern, after all.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Sigh, that's part of the problem with Catholicism. The church tends to adapt to its surroundings. Ever noticed how important Mary is in South America, while in Africa she's barely even mentioned. You'd think these people were following a different religion, but nope, all Catholic.

Of course, somewhere along the way, the Church caught on that being homophobic seemed damn close to having morals to some of the more conservative people in the wast. So they went ahead and made it one of their core issues, since what's the point of religion if it doesn't preach morals ? The thing with the catholic church is, they tend to assemble the choir and check out their interests before they start preaching to them. Even now, they have good reason to act homophobic, most 'liberals' who don't care about such things aren't the church going kind, a lot of people in the church are traditionalists, conservatives, and quite a few of them probably don't agree with this whole 'gay' thing. Not unlike some members of this board. It's of course vital for the church to keep these people on their side, otherwise they'd be preaching to entirely empty buildings.

Homophobia being an integral part of Catholicism ? Please, half the clergy is probably gay, the other half likely has more serious issues with their sexuality. A life of chastity is appealing to a certain kind of people, people who hate their own sexuality. Besides, the great Mother Church has covered up dozens of homosexual relationships of its priest (as well as heterosexual relationships and well, some far less moral 'relationships'), it's not doctrine, it's convinient and no religion does real-politik better than the good ol' Catholic church.

EDIT: congrats on your senior membership by the way don, I hadn't noticed yet, is it a recent promotion ?

I don't recognise this description of the Catholic Church at all. If the church behaved in the way you suggest it would have ditched its inconvenient opposition to contraception and remarriage after divorce.

[Duke of Gloucester]

The Catholic Church is not "homophobic" at all and homosexuals are allowed to be priests, nuns, ect, and I have no doubt that quite a few are. The problem with homosexual priests would come from those that are actively homosexual- of course there would be a somewhat similar problem with priests who are actively heterosexual.

I am not sure about this. There are other things between couples that the Catholic church would see as sinful, remarriage after divorce and polygamy. Do they refuse to place children with people to whom these apply? The Cardinal's moral position on this is genuine but is the vehemence with which he promotes the position rooted in subconscious homophobia? I suspect it is. I may be doing him an injustice, but I have encountered precisely this inconsistency from committed Christians in other cirmcumstances, for example comdemning films that portray homosexual relationships whilst being quite happy with James Bond whose sexual behaviour does not match Christian ideals!

[Papewaio]

I know this is going to send Goofball around his circuits, but I'd like to follow up with Pape on this one. You say that not only if they're accepting government funds, but religious institutions must come under the dominion of legal policy, across the board. Does that mean that churches that operate in Spain MUST perform homosexual marriages (homosexual marriage is recognized in Spain), or be in violation of the law?

Depends on the rest of the Spanish laws say.

Scenario a) You may not discriminate on providing goods and services based on gender.
Then yes they have to perform said marriages.

Scenario b) You may not discriminate on providing goods and services based on gender. You may discriminate on providing goods and services based on club membership.
Then as long as they are not club members they could be denied.

I don't think any religion should be above the law. Certain cults have been found encouraging child sex acts but stating that it gets them closer to God. I would have to say the laws of the land outweigh those of the religion. If the religion wants different laws then it has to go work through the same democratic process as the rest of the nation... ie votes and/or special interest groups. So if the religion didn't like scenario A they would have to go and work the process to go to at least scenario B.

[Xiahou]

I am not sure about this. There are other things between couples that the Catholic church would see as sinful, remarriage after divorce and polygamy. Do they refuse to place children with people to whom these apply?I don't know the answer to that- but I would hope so.

[caravel]

Sigh, that's part of the problem with Catholicism. The church tends to adapt to its surroundings. Ever noticed how important Mary is in South America, while in Africa she's barely even mentioned. You'd think these people were following a different religion, but nope, all Catholic.
In south america la virgen maría is much more prominent than both jesus christ and god. Statues and shrines are everywhere. Local saints have almost equal importance.

The church has definitely evolved to play to a pagan population's perception of how a god or gods should be worshipped. Great cathedrals were erected not just as places of worship but as visual, even idolatrous, monuments reminders of the christian god's dominion. Inside catholic churches there are idols galore, something which is definitely frowned upon in the bible: "Thou shalt have no graven images" (Exodus 20:4). The catholic and orthodox churches, when converting former idolaters had to give them new idols, when converting former polygamists gave them more than just a single entity without physical form. It took their old religious festivals and replaced them with new ones, Yuletide with Christmas, easter also being originally a pagan fertility festival (the real reason for the eggs and bunnies). The church adopted these and twisted them to meet it's needs.

[Watchman]

Really just making a virtue out of necessity, that. It was a given the common folk would not give up their traditional festive days, invocations to guardian spirits and whatever, so if Christianity was to really take root it had to co-opt the lot. It should tell something that traditional "witchmen" and similar magicians, as well as assorted other "pagan" paraphenelia including simple spells, rhymes and sacrifices to sundry supernatural forces, are well documented in much of Finland from as late as 1800s. And as part of the Swedish kingdom we were among the very first to go officially Protestant, which in principle should have purged all sorts of "lingering pagan influences" from the Christian practice...
:shrug:
Life was difficult and uncertain, and applying to the supernatural was a psychological coping mechanism - an attempt to gain some influence over the fickle weather that could devastate crops and cause famine, ward off diseases whose actual workings nobody comprehended, and similar incomprehensible and overwhelming hazards of daily existence. Similarly there are some pretty solid reasons why professions like sailors and other seamen and soldiers were particularly prone to all manner of superstition (the ubiquitous invocation of the divine in war cries and military symbols being merely the most "official" expression of this).

[doc_bean]

I don't recognise this description of the Catholic Church at all. If the church behaved in the way you suggest it would have ditched its inconvenient opposition to contraception and remarriage after divorce.

Part of the problem of the Church today is that it is slow to react to social changes. It tries to fit into society and then 'guide' society, but it failed to keep up with current evolutions. Partly because the ones in charge are all old and thus still have the old morals, as do a lot of their supporters.
Another problem is that due to their globalisation, people don't really understand what their church stands for anymore, they expect a uniform policy, it's harder for the church to do something in one place without the other place finding out.

For the record, the Catholic Church here doesn't mention a thing about contraceptives, that's mostly an issue with the African clergy, I think. All priests that I know ignore the rules against giving divorced people communion. Priests here also 'bless' second marriages, which isn't quite the same as real catholic wedding of course, but they are moving with the times.

[rory_20_uk]

So the church is slowly debasing what it stands for to try to be all things to all people. This isn't supposed to be a franchise organisation, it is supposed to be the church of God and speak for God on Earth, with the head of the Church infallible on church related issues.

For the Church to ignore its own tenants it becomes something of a farce.

~:smoking:

[Watchman]

Eh, I dunno. By all accounts the cheerfully debased and corrupt Late Medieval Church that happily turned a blind eye to almost anything as long as it got its tithes was way preferable to the rank fanaticism and mutual persecution of the Reformation era...

Puritanism in general just sucks rocks and makes life difficult for the average Joe and Jane.

[doc_bean]

Indeed, it's almost always been this way. The Chruch is far more concerned with unison and its own power than anything else.

They're a bit like a political party. They start out with an agenda, then have to make some compromises because otherwise tney won't get elected (or people go to another church) and once they get in power they have to keep their support up, so they constantly 'betray' their own principles, and eventually lose track what their principles are, or better: the principles of their 'followers' become their principles. And really, is that such a bad thing ?

[Watchman]

Heck, in a sense it sounds almost like "democracy by default"...

[Bava]

[...]with the head of the Church infallible on church related issues.

Why do you do expect the pope to be infallible when speaking ex cathedra? Because the Catholic church finally decided that he is in 1870?

[Navaros]

For once Catholics do something right and in accordance with God's will.

Kudos to them for that.

Lot of misinformation in this thread. God, Jesus, and all of the apostles very clearly condemned "homosexuality" in almost all of the books in the Bible.

All sins are not equal to each other, that is also misinformation, and highly ridiculous.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You know what the most pathetic thing is?

This law will benefit no one, had it not been passed homsexuals would still be allowed to adopt and 200 more children a year would find homes.

As is the only result will be those childrn not getting placed, and maybe needing new homes. After all can a Catholic orphanage operate with the knowledge that the children in their care might go to homosecuals.

:thumbsdown:

Bad all round.

[Don Corleone]

Sigh, that's part of the problem with Catholicism. The church tends to adapt to its surroundings. Ever noticed how important Mary is in South America, while in Africa she's barely even mentioned. You'd think these people were following a different religion, but nope, all Catholic.

Of course, somewhere along the way, the Church caught on that being homophobic seemed damn close to having morals to some of the more conservative people in the wast. So they went ahead and made it one of their core issues, since what's the point of religion if it doesn't preach morals ? The thing with the catholic church is, they tend to assemble the choir and check out their interests before they start preaching to them. Even now, they have good reason to act homophobic, most 'liberals' who don't care about such things aren't the church going kind, a lot of people in the church are traditionalists, conservatives, and quite a few of them probably don't agree with this whole 'gay' thing. Not unlike some members of this board. It's of course vital for the church to keep these people on their side, otherwise they'd be preaching to entirely empty buildings.

Homophobia being an integral part of Catholicism ? Please, half the clergy is probably gay, the other half likely has more serious issues with their sexuality. A life of chastity is appealing to a certain kind of people, people who hate their own sexuality. Besides, the great Mother Church has covered up dozens of homosexual relationships of its priest (as well as heterosexual relationships and well, some far less moral 'relationships'), it's not doctrine, it's convinient and no religion does real-politik better than the good ol' Catholic church.

EDIT: congrats on your senior membership by the way don, I hadn't noticed yet, is it a recent promotion ?

Wow! Cynical much? Has it ever dawned on you that in the past, homosexuality wasn't a big issue for the church because there was a reason that people referred to it as "the love that dare not speak it's name"? I think until 30 years ago, homosexuality was strictly underground throughout the Christian world, and the reason the Church didn't speak out against it was that for the most part, it wasn't being thrust into everyone's faces constantly as it is now.

Sure, there have always been homosexuals. But it's only been within the past 30 years that people have felt that their choice of sexual partner entitled them to special victim class status and felt a need to regale us all with pride marches and demands for community centers. The gay lobby's stated goal of being treated equally strikes me as rather Orwellian, as they're generally complaining about NOT receiving special treatment (that's not the case here, hence the use of the term 'generally').

As for your use of the term homophobia, I'd like to get you on record here as to what exactly that means. Is it the belief that homosexuality is immoral conduct that makes one homophobic? Or is it not 100% endorsement of the homosexual lobby? I'm just curious, because that term comes up a lot, and I've never gotten a firm defintion on it, or when I do, gay-issue advocates seem to misuse it. It seems to be some sort of slur that means since you don't agree with a particular gay advocacy position, you're a bigot. Or did I miss something?

Thanks for the congrats on my senior member status (nobody was more shocked than I) ~:pat: I think it came about last May.

[Fragony]

Sure, there have always been homosexuals. But it's only been within the past 30 years that people have felt that their choice of sexual partner entitled them to special victim class status and felt a need to regale us all with pride marches and demands for community centers. The gay lobby's stated goal of being treated equally strikes me as rather Orwellian, as they're generally complaining about NOT receiving special treatment (that's not the case here, hence the use of the term 'generally').

As for your use of the term homophobia, I'd like to get you on record here as to what exactly that means. Is it the belief that homosexuality is immoral conduct that makes one homophobic? Or is it not 100% endorsement of the homosexual lobby? I'm just curious, because that term comes up a lot, and I've never gotten a firm defintion on it, or when I do, gay-issue advocates seem to misuse it. It seems to be some sort of slur that means since you don't agree with a particular gay advocacy position, you're a bigot. Or did I miss something?


Well said, annoys the crap out of me. And I think that it is impossible for a heterosexual not to be homophobic to a certain extent. Comes with being heterosexual.

[Rameusb5]

And I think that it is impossible for a heterosexual not to be homophobic to a certain extent. Comes with being heterosexual.

Uh, no.

I am strictly hetero (boobs FTW), and could care less if someone I know is gay. I am a pretty judgmental guy too (for example, I think the predominance of reality shows and the new American Idol craze is a sign that Americans have about as much depth as a kiddie pool).

This "us" and "them" attitude is totally bogus and is holding our country back. Heteros don't automatically hate Homosexuals, and gay men don't hate women. By your rules, straight men should hate men, since they don't want to have sex with them.

Please don't project your own insecurities on the rest of us.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sure, there have always been homosexuals. But it's only been within the past 30 years that people have felt that their choice of sexual partner entitled them to special victim class status and felt a need to regale us all with pride marches and demands for community centers. The gay lobby's stated goal of being treated equally strikes me as rather Orwellian, as they're generally complaining about NOT receiving special treatment (that's not the case here, hence the use of the term 'generally').


What makes you think gays don't deserve a victim class? ~:confused: You said yourself 30 years ago they wouldn't say anything about their sexuality out of fear.

[Don Corleone]

Uh, no.

I am strictly hetero (boobs FTW), and could care less if someone I know is gay. I am a pretty judgmental guy too (for example, I think the predominance of reality shows and the new American Idol craze is a sign that Americans have about as much depth as a kiddie pool).

This "us" and "them" attitude is totally bogus and is holding our country back. Heteros don't automatically hate Homosexuals, and gay men don't hate women. By your rules, straight men should hate men, since they don't want to have sex with them.

Please don't project your own insecurities on the rest of us.

I'll have to allow Fragony to answer for himself, but I think he was projecting... that homosexuals will conclude that at some level all heterosexuals are homophobic to some degree. You answered based on the definition of homophobia relating to bigotry against homosexuals, but there's plenty of exampes of people that aren't bigoted against homosexuals but don't agree with the gay lobby's on a particular position. The gay lobby would claim the disagreement stems from the hetero's innate homophobia, of which all us heteros must be guilty.

[Don Corleone]

What makes you think gays don't deserve a victim class? ~:confused: You said yourself 30 years ago they wouldn't say anything about their sexuality out of fear.

Victim class I would argue but I might be willing to entertain. I could make the argument that they're 'victims' only because they chose to be (not that they chose to be gay, that they chose to tell everyone that that they were).

But I said 'special victims class'. Why does my bigoted grandfather mean that I have to pay to build a gay community center and pay for gay sex education classes?

Can I get special victim status? As an Irish Catholic, my grandfather got shot in the chest and almost lynched by a gang of klansmen in the late 30's. Does that mean I should start receiving government checks?

[Fragony]

Uh, no.

I am strictly hetero (boobs FTW), and could care less if someone I know is gay. I am a pretty judgmental guy too (for example, I think the predominance of reality shows and the new American Idol craze is a sign that Americans have about as much depth as a kiddie pool).

This "us" and "them" attitude is totally bogus and is holding our country back. Heteros don't automatically hate Homosexuals, and gay men don't hate women. By your rules, straight men should hate men, since they don't want to have sex with them.

Please don't project your own insecurities on the rest of us.

Hehe there is always one, boohooohooo me so insecure, why internet not believe I kiss girls???

I couldn't care less if someone is gay, one of my best friends is gay(ohhhh suepect!!!!), and he is nice enough not to be very gay about it. Do you enjoy watching two men kiss? I don't, I find it a repulsive sight. That doesn't mean I hate them for doing it.

By the way, what are you wearing?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Victim class I would argue but I might be willing to entertain. I could make the argument that they're 'victims' only because they chose to be (not that they chose to be gay, that they chose to tell everyone that that they were).

Just lie all the time?


But I said 'special victims class'. Why does my bigoted grandfather mean that I have to pay to build a gay community center and pay for gay sex education classes?

Can I get special victim status? As an Irish Catholic, my grandfather got shot in the chest and almost lynched by a gang of klansmen in the late 30's. Does that mean I should start receiving government checks?

Well, I was just reading on another forum where somebody was telling stories about his two twin brothers, one of which was gay. The other brother kept coming back with black eyes and nearly broken bones. Such is the rural south apparently.

[Don Corleone]

Just lie all the time?

Who said anything about lying? I'm talking about not flaunting it. I don't tell you when I have sex with my wife, do I? I consider it equally vulgar for straight couples to tongue-kiss and fondle each other in public.



Well, I was just reading on another forum where somebody was telling stories about his two twin brothers, one of which was gay. The other brother kept coming back with black eyes and nearly broken bones. Such is the rural south apparently. This is already a crime, and it's known as assault. How does building a gay community center solve this?

[Rameusb5]

Hehe there is always one, boohooohooo me so insecure, why internet not believe I kiss girls???

I couldn't care less if someone is gay, one of my best friends is gay(ohhhh suepect!!!!), and he is nice enough not to be very gay about it. Do you enjoy watching two men kiss? I don't, I find it a repulsive sight. That doesn't mean I hate them for doing it.

By the way, what are you wearing?

I'll rescind my statement about your insecurities. It was over the line. :oops:

But that doesn't make your original statement that all heterosexuals are homophobic any less wrong. :boxing:


And I'm wearing a pink tutu, obviously! ~D

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Who said anything about lying? I'm talking about not flaunting it. I don't tell you when I have sex with my wife, do I? I consider it equally vulgar for straight couples to tongue-kiss and fondle each other in public.

Disagree with flaunting all you want, it doesn't place the blame in their court. Straight couples who fondle in public don't get assaulted, that's why they're not a victim class.



This is already a crime, and it's known as assault. How does building a gay community center solve this?

This was in response to "my great great great great great grandfather may have been a bigot, by no one is today".

Maybe the center could have a first aid kit and kung fu lessons :bounce:

[Fragony]

And I'm wearing a pink tutu, obviously! ~D

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH


But that doesn't make your original statement that all heterosexuals are homophobic any less wrong. :boxing:

Just proved it ~;)

[doc_bean]

Wow! Cynical much? Has it ever dawned on you that in the past, homosexuality wasn't a big issue for the church because there was a reason that people referred to it as "the love that dare not speak it's name"? I think until 30 years ago, homosexuality was strictly underground throughout the Christian world,


Not really, Dante mentions the sodomites in his Divina Comedia (or whatever it's exactly called). I think the cities of the renaissance and possibly medieval times had their fair share of homosexuals. I'm not saying the church approved, the sodomites did go to hell afterall.


and the reason the Church didn't speak out against it was that for the most part, it wasn't being thrust into everyone's faces constantly as it is now.

I think they pushed it to the forefront because they couldn't sell so many other points to their public anymore. Pre-marital sex could still be bad since most people attending mass are married, and they don't want their kids screwing around (like most people don't want that, apparently), homosexuality could be bad, because damnit, they want grandchildren !

Of course, certain, less popular morals got pushed back a little. Acceptance of divorce is starting to happen, abortion is a hot issue, but there some surprising cases where they did consent (okay, it was royalty). Sitting in church on Sundays ? Masses are cut to 30 minutes these days. Confession ? I was raised Catholic, went ot a Catholic school in a Catholic country and only once did I get the chance to 'confess'. I was only allowed to say one pre-written sentence then.

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but isn't the act of confession supposedly much more of a core issue to Catholicism than homosexuality ?


Sure, there have always been homosexuals. But it's only been within the past 30 years that people have felt that their choice of sexual partner entitled them to special victim class status

Wow, so the Catholic church now protest to victim classes ? Besides, I never saw them as a victim class and most homosexuals that i've know didn't really either. They did feel that they had it a little harder, perhaps, but that isn't the same thing.


and felt a need to regale us all with pride marches

You're making it sound like they're some kind of evil protest marches instead of the parties that they usually are.


and demands for community centers.

Uh, well some organisations exist, I assume some of them even get support from the government, but so do the boy scouts and a gew thousand organisations for immigrants, I don't see the problem.


The gay lobby's stated goal of being treated equally strikes me as rather Orwellian, as they're generally complaining about NOT receiving special treatment (that's not the case here, hence the use of the term 'generally').

This is about gay marriage I assume ? I can't think of anything else it could be about.

I don't think religious organisations should be forced to wed homosexual couples. Hell no. But as a civil union, I don't see any reason why a marriage contract shouldn't be able to exist between two people of the same gender.

I've heard the reasoning of why it would be special treatement, (they're still allowed to amrry the opposite sex just like the rest of us), but grankly, that always struck me as BS.



As for your use of the term homophobia, I'd like to get you on record here as to what exactly that means. Is it the belief that homosexuality is immoral conduct that makes one homophobic? Or is it not 100% endorsement of the homosexual lobby? I'm just curious, because that term comes up a lot, and I've never gotten a firm defintion on it, or when I do, gay-issue advocates seem to misuse it. It seems to be some sort of slur that means since you don't agree with a particular gay advocacy position, you're a bigot. Or did I miss something?

Homophobia is a bit like racism, in that it isn't always clearly defined. I'd generally say homophobia is
1. literally, a fear of homosexuals. (or hate of homosexuals)
2. descrimination based solely on the fact that they are homosexual

The first point is quite I think. It refers to people who actively avoid homosexuals, try to get them out of a community, attack them, try to force them back into the closet, etc.
The second point is a little harder to define of course. It means that all things equal, if person A was heterosexual and person B was homosexual, you'd prefer person A. Of course this only applies if the degree to which you judge people based on their sexuality is significant compared to toher factors. Say, your an employer and you'd hire the obviously less qualified hetero opposed to the nearly-overqualified homo.

Now, I think it's possible to be opposed to 'gay culture' without necessarily being a homophobe. But then you should be opposed on the basis of how they act (or are represented) and not just on the basis of their sexuality. Nobody has to like shows like queer eye for the straight guy or Will and Grace or appreciate the finer points of Gloria Estefan if they don't want to. And you're allowed to find the gay pride parade annoying, because you ahte parades and the music and whatnot. But then you'd also hate the love parade and pretty much any other parade. It's not because there are gay people involved that you hate it.

besides, a lot of homoseuxals are slightly embarrased by how 'they' are constantly portraited by the media too, probably a lot more than you think.

And FTR, I don't think not supporting gay marriage is homophobic in itself, though I'd say the reasons why people protest it are often homophobic.



Thanks for the congrats on my senior member status (nobody was more shocked than I) ~:pat: I think it came about last May.

Strange, I either missed it completely or had forgotten you were a senior member (damn aging). You deserve it, in any case.

[King Henry V]

I thought give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's applied not only to obeying the tax laws of the land, but all laws of the land.

I still don't see how even if they are a private company that they could operate outside the law of the land. It's not like a private business can shoot their employees because they don't get any government money.

Surely if the law of the land said 'no abortions'a private clinic would have to obey that too?

If they close the adoption centers then they are the ones acting as dogs in the manger.
Well if that is the case:

-Should the Catholic Church be prosecuted for refusing to perform marriage services for people based on their sexual orientation?

-Should the Catholic Church be prosecuted for refusing to hire people based on their sexual orientation (no homosexual priests)?

-Should the Catholic Church be prosecuted for refusing to hire people based on their gender (no female priests)?

[Xiahou]

For the record, the Catholic Church here doesn't mention a thing about contraceptives, that's mostly an issue with the African clergy, I think. All priests that I know ignore the rules against giving divorced people communion. Priests here also 'bless' second marriages, which isn't quite the same as real catholic wedding of course, but they are moving with the times.
All throughout high school I was told repeatedly that contraception was wrong. I was also told again during my pre-marriage "class". It was mentioned quite often to me.

I don't know of any rule against giving divorced people communion. The Church recognizes the need for civil divorce and there is no such thing as religious divorce- your vows are made for life or not made at all. We had a Catholic school teacher who was divorced- she was only terminated when she re-married. She was told ahead of time that she couldn't work there if she did and made her decision with that knowledge.

Catholic priests should not "bless" second marriages- I know that to be explicitly against the rules.

[doc_bean]

All throughout high school I was told repeatedly that contraception was wrong. I was also told again during my pre-marriage "class". It was mentioned quite often to me.

I don't know of any rule against giving divorced people communion. The Church recognizes the need for civil divorce and there is no such thing as religious divorce- your vows are made for life or not made at all. We had a Catholic school teacher who was divorced- she was only terminated when she re-married. She was told ahead of time that she couldn't work there if she did and made her decision with that knowledge.

Catholic priests should not "bless" second marriages- I know that to be explicitly against the rules.


See how different our Catholic Churches are ? I rest my case on this matter.

[Don Corleone]

Catholic priests should not "bless" second marriages- I know that to be explicitly against the rules.

Not if the spouse(s) receive an annullment for the first marriage(s).

Doc, the church and it's rules are universal. There is no difference in the rules in Afrcia, Asia, Americas, Australia or Europe (always have to be different, don't you guys). The only difference is how much the local priest enforces them and what he emphasizes and deemphasizes. But that doesn't mean that the church has a non-universal system in place, it just means it has individuals within its ranks that take authority unto themselves, arguably where they shouldn't.

From what I've seen of European church attendance, it's no wonder they give you people your way on everything. I think only 10% of the population regularly attends church services (Muslims excluded, they drive the numbers up) and of that 10% the vast majority is over age 60. I don't think your the poster children for Christianity (Protestant or Catholic).

[doc_bean]

Not if the spouse(s) receive an annullment for the first marriage(s).

Doc, the church and it's rules are universal. There is no difference in the rules in Afrcia, Asia, Americas, Australia or Europe (always have to be different, don't you guys). The only difference is how much the local priest enforces them and what he emphasizes and deemphasizes. But that doesn't mean that the church has a non-universal system in place, it just means it has individuals within its ranks that take authority unto themselves, arguably where they shouldn't.

It's not just the priests, it's the bishops and cardinals too, that's the way the system works, it's much more decentalized than most people think.

I've pointed out the differences before, but you all seem to doubt me. You can request a blessing of your second marriage, even without an annulment, here. Contraceptives are freely discussed in catholic schools (heck, we almost had a condom machine, and our 9th and 10th grade 'religion' teacher wasn't married but living with her 'partner', who did turn out to be male, to our surprise).

Did you know that according to offical church doctrine (TM) Mary isn't even an actual virgin ? Someone was sued here for claiming that, apparently he was right, no religious figure countered his claim anyway, and he could back it with papal decrees or whatnot. Try selling THAT in South America.

Sure they have an official version of the faith, but they allow much, much freedom in interpretation. I'm not even sure what the universal rules are, given that the sacraments aren't even considered important anymore here :huh2:

[Don Corleone]

You're all a bunch of heretics, what can I say? ~:pat: (NOTE: Comment meant in jest. Ser C, no need to rebuke me).

There's always been a debate about whether Mary was a virgin AFTER Jesus was born. I don't think any official Christian church disputes that Mary was a virgin UNTIL Jesus was born, as that's exactly what the 3 synoptic gospels say, in unequivocable terms.

[Watchman]

We occasionally get them funny papers redoing the whole Jesus thing... tabloid style. "Mary pregnant! Josef denies culpability!" "Cult leader rides into town! Thousands shout Hosiannah!" :clown:

[doc_bean]

I don't think any official Christian church disputes that Mary was a virgin UNTIL Jesus was born, as that's exactly what the 3 synoptic gospels say, in unequivocable terms.

Apparently it does, the virgin part was a metaphor for being free of hereditary sin, or something.

Good old Benedict recently allowed another fringe group into the Mother Church, I believe they support the Mel Gibson version of Catholicism with masses in Latin and whatnot (not sure about the anti semitism), there's also an oriental version of Catholicism which is far more resemblant of the Orthodox version if you ask me. The Church mainly cares about being there, and preferably being the only one there, they allow a lot of 'heresy' if they believe it might give them (long term) benefits. But like i said, this isn't always a bad thing.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It's not just the priests, it's the bishops and cardinals too, that's the way the system works, it's much more decentalized than most people think.

Bishops in particular do have a lot of power when it comes to details of practice of the liturgy, appointment of priests and control of schools, but none at all when it comes to doctrine.


I've pointed out the differences before, but you all seem to doubt me.

We do believe you, but it would seem that Belgium is different from most other places.


You can request a blessing of your second marriage, even without an annulment, here.

You can ask in England, but you will politely told "no".


Contraceptives are freely discussed in catholic schools

I should hope so. Contrary to what some might say, Catholic schools do not seek to control Children by keeping them in ignorance.


heck, we almost had a condom machine,

Not sure how you can almost have a condom machine, but this would certainly not happen in England.


and our 9th and 10th grade 'religion' teacher wasn't married but living with her 'partner', who did turn out to be male, to our surprise

This does happen in England, and why not as long as she was a good teacher.


Did you know that according to offical church doctrine (TM) Mary isn't even an actual virgin ? Someone was sued here for claiming that, apparently he was right, no religious figure countered his claim anyway, and he could back it with papal decrees or whatnot. Try selling THAT in South America.

Citation please! The Catechism of the Catholic Church is pretty clear and talks about "perpetual virginity" (499)


Sure they have an official version of the faith, but they allow much, much freedom in interpretation. I'm not even sure what the universal rules are, given that the sacraments aren't even considered important anymore here

Clearly it is happening in Belgium, but even a Belgian bishop is not allowed to change what is allowed.


Apparently it does, the virgin part was a metaphor for being free of hereditary sin, or something.

I think you are confusing the Virgin Birth with the Immaculate Conception.


Good old Benedict recently allowed another fringe group into the Mother Church, I believe they support the Mel Gibson version of Catholicism with masses in Latin and whatnot (not sure about the anti semitism),

Another citation would be helpful so we know what this is about.


there's also an oriental version of Catholicism which is far more resemblant of the Orthodox version if you ask me.

Similar to eastern orthodox in sacramental rites, but holding the same doctrine as other Catholics, unlike the Orthodox churches - the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, the Assumption (as opposed to the Dormition) and Papal infalibility)


Not if the spouse(s) receive an annullment for the first marriage(s).


Technically an annullment is a finding that the first marriage was not valid. In other words there was no first marriage. Of course, second marriages are allowed if your first spouse is dead.


There's always been a debate about whether Mary was a virgin AFTER Jesus was born. I don't think any official Christian church disputes that Mary was a virgin UNTIL Jesus was born, as that's exactly what the 3 synoptic gospels say, in unequivocable terms.

Only Matthew and Luke have stories about the birth of Christ. Mark is silent about his conception and birth, but the virgin birth is affirmed in the Nicene creed.

[Xiahou]

Technically an annullment is a finding that the first marriage was not valid. In other words there was no first marriage. Of course, second marriages are allowed if your first spouse is dead.
Exactly. Marriage after an annulment isn't a second marriage since the first marriage never happened. The only way to get married twice in the Church is if your first spouse dies.

[doc_bean]

Not sure how you can almost have a condom machine, but this would certainly not happen in England.


Well, they debated whether or not to install one. I believe the student council was against it in the end (don't know about the parent council, teachers and whatnot). Arguing that if you're not mature enough to buy them in the supermarket, you shouldn't have sex.

I think there's probably a huge difference between how the church acts in countries where it is the dominant religion and countries where it isn't. :shrug:

Can't give you the citations, sorry, it was just stuff in the local news.

[Ignoramus]

Maybe someone here could clarify something for me. Where in the NT does it state that homosexuality is a no-no? It's been quite some time since I read the bible but I don't recall Jesus ever saying that homosexuals are an abomination. Just wondering who decided they were, if Jesus did not.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Not the New Testament, but the Old Testament is equally important and true as the New Testament.

I think it is horrible that Christians in general are being "legislated" against. Supposing you, as a Christian, want to put your child up for adoption(for whatever reason, let's say that you can't support the child anyone for example), and a homosexual couple applies to adopt the child. Would you be horrified that you couldn't refuse them to adopt your child? I'd be horrified. The UK says that it has religious freedom, yet it forces Christians to act against their beliefs.

If I was living in the UK, I would not obey that law. It is wrong. Just like here in Victoria, Australia. We are being told that we are not allowed to say something that may "vilify" another religion. I attended a seminar on Islam recently, and I had to sign that I was a Christian to prevent Muslims coming in and suing the speaker for giving an informed view about Islam. It is a disgrace that Western society has sunk this low.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think it is horrible that Christians in general are being "legislated" against. Supposing you, as a Christian, want to put your child up for adoption(for whatever reason, let's say that you can't support the child anyone for example), and a homosexual couple applies to adopt the child. Would you be horrified that you couldn't refuse them to adopt your child? I'd be horrified. The UK says that it has religious freedom, yet it forces Christians to act against their beliefs.

I'm not at all sure that this represents legislation "against" Christians, but for the rights of all. I appreciate that you believe strongly that your faith is the only true one, but not everyone agrees with you. Remember, in the UK Roman Catholics are still sub-class citizens under the Act of Settlement, and the Equality Act should help them too. (Anyone want to bet on a challenge to the Act of Settlement in the near future?)

I'm also confused as to why a person giving up their child for adoption should have a great deal of say in who that child is adopted by. Surely if one believes so strongly that one's child should be brought up a Christian, one should bring it up oneself? I appreciate that life is harsh and sometimes this is not possible, but I don't know that any public adoption agencies are bound by the requirements of the natural parents as to who may adopt. I'd be interested in examples where this was the case.

One interesting aspect of this case is that it appears to be characteristic of Tony Blair's strange way of governing. Ruth Kelly is the minister for equality, responsible for the Equality Act that is at the centre of this row.

Mrs Kelly is apparently a member of Opus Dei and well-known for her robust catholic faith. Her voting record shows that she has studiously avoided all votes on matters contentious to her faith, such as abortion, school sex education, homosexual rights and suchlike.

Good for her. I'm not a fan of religious influence in government, but I can't deny someone with strong convictions and faith is usually a good influence amongst the usual venial corruptions in politics. As a backbencher, this is a good contribution, though perhaps one would have preferred to see her present at debates to present a view.

However, for the Prime Minister to then appoint this woman to the post of Minister for Equality (a ministry he created) where her explicit portfolio is to address the very issues she has so assidiously avoided (let's not note her run as Education Secretary) seems to me perverse to the extreme. For her to accept the post, knowing that she could not in conscience deliver to the requirements of the post, seems also to be perverse.

Having a Ministry for Equality in itself is a whole new thread, but if you're going to have one, why set its minister up for failure?

[InsaneApache]

Having a Ministry for Equality in itself is a whole new thread, but if you're going to have one, why set its minister up for failure?

It's called joined up government. Every other department is failing. Home office, DEFRA, MOD, education, NHS. So it's only logical that Tony would screw this up as well. After all he's had ten years practise.

He's like a sort of reverse King Midas, except everything he touches turns to lead. :shame:

[rory_20_uk]

Setting upa Ministry where the peron in charge wants to do nothing is perfect modern politics. Tony doesn't want to do anything, but can't be seen to beo doing nothing. By placing someone who has a track record of not doing anything he's making a song and dance whilst nothing really changes.

When the wind blows elsewhere (possibly thanks to another campaign or news story) the ministry can be either dropped be amalgamated or contine in its present pointless state.

~:smoking:

[ajaxfetish]

I'm also confused as to why a person giving up their child for adoption should have a great deal of say in who that child is adopted by. Surely if one believes so strongly that one's child should be brought up a Christian, one should bring it up oneself?
This is one case where I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, BG. Adoption is probably one of the world's best alternatives to abortion. For prospective parents who know they are not in a position to take care of their child, but still want that child to have the opportunity of a good life, this is a great sacrifice and an act of love. I think they have every right to try to find their child the kind of upbringing they would have given it if they could.

Ajax

[Slyspy]

I should point out to BG that whatever our laws from yester-year may say Catholics are in practice not actually sub-class citizens. In fact I rather resent the suggestion that they are treated as such.

Edit:

PM has said that there will be no exceptions to the rules.

[rory_20_uk]

This is one case where I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, BG. Adoption is probably one of the world's best alternatives to abortion. For prospective parents who know they are not in a position to take care of their child, but still want that child to have the opportunity of a good life, this is a great sacrifice and an act of love. I think they have every right to try to find their child the kind of upbringing they would have given it if they could.

Ajax

Hmm. They were irrisponsible enough to get pregnant, but have sufficient morals to demand a specific family for their unwanted child. They can't be bothered to find a family themselves, so need an agency that they can dump the child on to sort it all out...

Sorry. Talk some responsibility for your own life - or pull your finger out and make that "perfect" family that you apparently feel unable / unwilling to recreate.

~:smoking: