Catholics deny gays right to adopt.

[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...

[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 ?

[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?

[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.



Bad all round.