gay adoption

[Gayle]

Well I think I am taking the liberal approach - everyone should be allowed to do what they want! Discrimination laws turn it on its head and start to discriminate against the discriminaters.

Race discrimination and gay discrimination are slightly (and again we're on that thin line, so very slightly) different.

[Wynonie Harris]

So basically, you're saying that discrimination laws should be scrapped? That people should be free to refuse to serve someone in a pub because they're coloured, free to refuse someone accommodation because they're gay, free to refuse to give someone a job because they're female?

And why are race discrimination and gay discrimination different? They're both examples of irrational prejudice. Are you saying that gay discrimination is more acceptable than race discrimination?

Oh well, you're entitled to your views, but I find them puzzling.

[Ianto.W.]

Gayle, it's not that the catholic church is saying that a same sex couple can't adopt (or can't stay in a b&b) just that they would rather not facillitate it

The Catholic Church will not allow condoms to help stem the aids plague or overpopulation either,because they believe sex is for procreation purposes only, not because it makes sense? If laws are introduced they must be for all, and no exceptions for anyone or do not make them.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Gayle

Race discrimination and gay discrimination are slightly (and again we're on that thin line, so very slightly) different.

How?

Discrimination is either wrong or right, you can't start picking and chosing which you, or any other groups views, you like or happen to agree with.

My first post in this thread stated that if you are going to respect all faith groups, then you also must respect the Catholic church's view re:adoption.

This thread has helped me change my mind.

If you are going to have anti-discrimination laws they should apply across the board, and there should be no exemptions.

Perhaps if the Catholic adoption agencies feel that they are no longer able to comply with the laws of the land, then perhaps they should do something else instead.

Perhaps they could throw their weight behind a contraception campaign, so there are less babies waiting to be adopted in the first place.

Am disappointed, but not suprised, that that old homophobe Jambutty has failed or even to attempted to answer my earlier questions, regarding the incidence of homosexuality versus hetrosexuality resulting from gay parents, or commenting on the fact as to why the same hetrosexual couple, giving the same 'normal' role models, can result in both hetro and homosexual offspring.

Disappointed..but not suprised, perhaps.

Sad, but laughable.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Ianto.W.

The Catholic Church will not allow condoms to help stem the aids plague or overpopulation either,because they believe sex is for procreation purposes only, not because it makes sense? If laws are introduced they must be for all, and no exceptions for anyone or do not make them.

Wrong.

There is in fact an offical Papal edict which allows the use of condoms, to prevent the spread of the HIV virus, as long as it has a hole in it, and I don't mean the end the gentleman's winky goes in!

Absolutely laughable.

The Jesus I know, if he came back to day, would be shocked and saddened at the Cathoic church's views interprutations of his teachings.

His message was of love, not one of sin, and damnation, and guilt and the get out of jail card, meaning confession.

As for the treatment of children, I bet 100% that he would rather children were loved and cared for in a family, any family, rather than left in any effin' orphanage.

[cashman]

The Jesus I know, if he came back to day, would be shocked and saddened at the Cathoic church's views interprutations of his teachings.-------didn,t realise you were THAT old Rindy.

[garinda]

Lol, I think he'd also be shocked at my spelling!

Damn you edit button..

[katex]

May I just ask a personal question here? Isn't there in same sex relationships, a role played out by one being the female, t'other the male?
Just askin like, probably being naive. In that case, would qualify as being normal parental roles?

Am sure any child being taken on by Gay couples would have a wonderful life .... housework attended to, wonderful cooking, dressed in the fashion of the day, bodily cleanliness adhered to, seeking best schooling, etc., and most of all being really wanted.

On the flip side, there is always the question that you would all ask yourselves if your son were invited on holiday with the son of a Gay couple, would their sexual leanings spill over to the detriment of your offspring? Course this is rubbish, I know .. but always this question at the back of your minds, isn't there? and sure you would interrogate your young on return... no matter how you have supported this cause in your posts.

Having said this, hetrosexuals have a much worse track record. I, myself, have been 'the victim' of 'advances' from friend's fathers in my early teens, and would trust a gay person over hetrosexuals any day.

[Ianto.W.]

garinda, There is in fact an offical Papal edict which allows the use of condoms, to prevent the spread of the HIV virus, as long as it has a hole in it, and I don't mean the end the gentleman's winky goes in!

Double edged sword garinda, knowing full well they are on a safe bet that no man in his right mind would knowingly go with a woman who had AIDS with 50 condoms on. "do they allow it for aids"? I thought it was only the rhythm method, which is ok as long as your not deaf.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I've tried to imagine myself personally in some situations where I would want the right to discriminate and all I can say is that I'm glad I'm NOT in that position. If I owned a conference centre for instance I would certainly want to be able to refuse the BNP the right to hold a rally there.

Looking at it from the opposite point of view - if I were being discriminated against I would rather know up front "we don't want your sort here" than to be grudgingly permitted access and served by someone who clearly resented doing so. I'd much rather be somewhere I felt welcome.

I was talking to someone on another message board who said he didn't have any double beds in his B&B because he didn't want any "goings on" under his roof even if they were married couples! If you'll pardon the expression, there's nowt so queer as folk.

Most of the children up for adoption are not babies, so birth control wouldn't make a great deal of difference. Many are older children often with disabilities. Some have living parents who are unable to cope with their needs. The Catholic adoption service is the only one as far a I am aware which continues to offer support to the adopted child and parent right up until they are 18, most stop at 16.

There are only two options as far as the Catholic church is concerned - to continue as at present or to shut up shop entirely. Do you seriously believe that the latter is the best solution? That would place a greater burden on the other agencies. Would they be able to cope? Many of you have said that any loving parent(s) is better than growing up in an orphanage - but with fewer people organising adoptions then more children would spent their childhood growing up in an orphanage. It would actually create the situation you say you don't want.

As I and others have said, the Catholic adoption service has never sought to infringe upon the rights of gay couples to adopt, they have up to now been directed towards the relevant agencies who happily deal with them. But now this law seeks to discriminate against Catholic beliefs. This isn't a law about freedom. It's a law creating discrimination, discrimination in the name of equality. Where will such discrimnation end? How many more faiths are we going to make laws against? Where is the "PC Brigade" defending these people's rights?

I'm not a Catholic but I will defend their right to their own beliefs, just as I will defend anyone's. They are not trying to impose their beliefs on others. They are the ones being imposed upon. They are quite happy to live and let live so why can't the non-Catholics allow them the same privilege?

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

If I owned a conference centre for instance I would certainly want to be able to refuse the BNP the right to hold a rally there.

Looking at it from the opposite point of view - if I were being discriminated against I would rather know up front "we don't want your sort here" than to be grudgingly permitted access and served by someone who clearly resented doing so. I'd much rather be somewhere I felt welcome.

So, Willow, you also would want to repeal the existing discrimination laws so that people are free to refuse service, accommodation or jobs to others purely on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation? Don't you think it would be major step backwards? How would you feel if you applied for a vacancy and they told you, "Sorry, you're well-qualified to do the job, but we don't want a woman." Would you walk away, contented, thinking, "Well, at least I know where I stand."

And if you'd want to refuse the right of the BNP to hold a conference, why do you defend the anti-gay beliefs of the Catholic church? Surely, both are based on irrational prejudice, or do you, as Gayle appears to, think that homophobia somehow isn't quite as bad as racism?

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

So, Willow, you also would want to repeal the existing discrimination laws so that people are free to refuse service, accommodation or jobs to others purely on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation? Don't you think it would be major step backwards? How would you feel if you applied for a vacancy and they told you, "Sorry, you're well-qualified to do the job, but we don't want a woman." Would you walk away, contented, thinking, "Well, at least I know where I stand."

And if you'd want to refuse the right of the BNP to hold a conference, why do you defend the anti-gay beliefs of the Catholic church? Surely, both are based on irrational prejudice, or do you, as Gayle appears to, think that homophobia somehow isn't quite as bad as racism?

That is ABSOLUTELY not what I mean at all.

I've been giving this a lot of thought and it's not something that I can answer rashly. In the words of big brother 'I'll get back to you'.

[Wynonie Harris]

Is it not? Well, that's what you've said:

Originally Posted by Gayle

what I don't like is people being forced not to discriminate

I shall await your considered response with interest!

[Wynonie Harris]

And again

Originally Posted by Gayle

Race discrimination and gay discrimination are slightly (and again we're on that thin line, so very slightly) different.

Why are they different?

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by Gayle

I KNEW you weren't ok about that!

I'm sorry and the problem arose because I never for one minute thought that there would be a problem - I'm so naive I just thought I'd get the right person in for the right job! That's because I believe everyone should just get on and no one should be discriminated against! When I was informed there was a bit of a problem I had to sort it out which I realise upset you but I was in a 'needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one' situation.

Incidentally, Gayle, I've just been rereading some of the posts in this thread and I noticed this which presumably refers to the fashion show you organised as part of your "do" at tht town hall. I assume that the muslim women wouldn't work with Garinda because he was bloke. Can I just ask, if you were organising a similar event with white women and they refused to work with a girl because she was Asian, would you still go ahead because "the needs of many outweighs the needs of one".