gay adoption

[Billcat]

Originally Posted by jambutty

If some people cannot accept that I am just as entitled as they are to have an opinion....

I don't think that anyone is contesting your right to have an opinion, even though we believe it to be based on a very ill-informed position.

jambutty, your opinion does seem to be pretty much of the "My mind is made up, so I don't need to deal with the facts," variety. While I find your opinion offensive, you are welcome express your own opinion. I would hope, however, that there would be a reasoned substantiation of your position, which has not been that case so far. Therefore, your posts do not hold up well when others in the discussion provide factual evidence that counters a number of your claims. Probably leaves you feeling frustrated as well, because the arguments (and evidence) are piling up in favor of the other side.

I would respectfully suggest that, having said your say (several times) and apparently with nothing to add beyond your personal opinion, that you consider bowing out gracefully from the discussion. Making threats, as you did recently, is really unacceptable. Be opinionated, be ardent, by all means, but please do not threaten.

[Billcat]

Originally Posted by Bazf

Just read the thread and was not going to comment but I have just done a lesson on diversity and I was amazed that some of the kids I teach are more open and understanding then some of the adults on here. In the lesson I used the anlogy of a ladder.

Bazf - a great post, one very worthy of the karma I just gave you!

[WillowTheWhisp]

I find it interesting that although the Catholic Church's agencies only handle 4% of all adoptions in a year, they handle about a third of those children judged difficult to place. So why are other agencies not handling their fair share of the problem children. Could they be discriminating against them perhaps?

I'm trying to find out how long the Catholic church has been involved in adoption and if it is in fact the chicken or the egg.

If the law already existed and the Catholic church had come along and said we will do this but we want changes in the law just for us then I would say they should not be looking at doing it because they know the score and if they can't work to the existing rules then they shouldn't be starting an adoption agency. But that isn't the case. They have been organising successful adoptions for a long time (and I hope I can find out how long) and now the rules are being changed and they feel they can no longer do so if it means compromising their beliefs to fit in with the new set of rules.

As I said earlier we already make exceptions to some laws for some religious groups so it's not even as if the Catholic church wants to set a precendent on this.

I don't believe they are being unreasonable. I would never expect anyone to do something that put them in a position where they were asked to go against the organisation they represent or against their own moral values, whether I agreed with those moral values or not.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I found this which gives a bit of local history on the subject.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by Billcat

How are they discriminating against Catholicism? I don't see it!

If the Catholic Church chooses to participate in non-religious activities, such as adoption, then they must abide by the legal standard for that activity. They should not be allowed to discriminate.

I think at one time before there was any such thing as Social Services it was probably solely a religious activity based on the Biblical admonition to care for widows and orphans. Probably long before it became an organised activity it would have happened on a smaller local scale.

I cannot see why the Catholic church can't be allowed to get on with dealing with all those difficult to place children which other agencies aren't as keen on and let the other agencies deal with the gay couples who they are keen on. It provides for all needs that way.

[garinda]

According to a recent poll 37% of young British Muslims would like to see the introduction of Sharia law in Britain.

Would the people calling for exemptions from the Discrimination Bill for Catholics, demand the same rights, and prejudices, of other faith groups such as Muslims, also to have exemptions from British law?

Interesting to note that the Muslim Council of Britain has given its backing for the demand for the Cathoic Church to be exempt from providing adoptions to same sex, and unmarried couples

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/...n_page_id=1770


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...cle2186511.ece

[shakermaker]

Religion has had way too much influence on legislation and it's about time it stopped.

We're supposed to be living in a civilised society for crying out loud.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by garinda

According to a recent poll 37% of young British Muslims would like to see the introduction of Sharia law in Britain.

Would the people calling for exemptions from the Discrimination Bill for Catholics, demand the same rights, and prejudices, of other faith groups such as Muslims, also to have exemptions from British law?

There's a subtle difference here in that if Britain were subject to Sharia law I very much doubt that the Sharia courts would direct those of us who would want to be tried under other rules to an alternative court.

The Catholic church always redirects gay couples to other adoption agencies. They do not seek to ban adoption by gay couples.

However, I do believe that at present there are some forms of Sharia courts in this country already, although I don't know much about how they operate. Perhaps someone else knows and can enlighten us.

In our church we have (for want of better word) church courts which will discipline someone who has for intance committed adultery which as far as I am aware is not a criminal offence. There is never any suggestion that it should be against the law of the land to commit adultery but it is against the laws of our church. The adulterer has a choice - stop adultering and come back to full fellowhip in the church or carry on as you are but you can't hold any church callings. Is anyone suggesting that we should condone adultery because it isn't illegal?

[garinda]

Here's a Catholic Priest who believes an anti-cervical cancer drug shouldn't be given to women, because it encourages promiscuity!

Thank goodness he's in America, or people here would be demanding he had a right to interfere with people's lives, and should have exemptions from the law.


http://spirit-and-life.blogspot.com/...eption-of.html

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Religion has had way too much influence on legislation and it's about time it stopped.

We're supposed to be living in a civilised society for crying out loud.

I could understand the hue and cry if the Catholic church had sought to ban adoption by gay couples, but they haven't. They have not interefered in the law of the land, just asked that the law not interfere with them.

I can support both points of view without seeing a conflict. Live and let live, let both co-exist as they have succesfully done so up to now.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by garinda

Here's a Catholic Priest who believes an anti-cervical cancer drug shouldn't be given to women, because it encourages promiscuity!

Thank goodness he's in America, or people here would be demanding he had a right to interfere with people's lives, and should have exemptions from the law.


http://spirit-and-life.blogspot.com/...eption-of.html

Now on this I agree with you, I don't believe he has the right to interfere with other people's life and death situations. It should be a matter of personal choice down to the individual. And how the heck it encourages promiscuity I do not know.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I could understand the hue and cry if the Catholic church had sought to ban adoption by gay couples, but they haven't. They have not interefered in the law of the land, just asked that the law not interfere with them.

I can support both points of view without seeing a conflict. Live and let live, let both co-exist as they have succesfully done so up to now.

It comes down to principles.

You have anti-discrimination laws that are applicable to everyone, or you don't.

Once you start making any exceptions you start on a slippery slope, that will be open to abuse.

[WillowTheWhisp]

But we've already got exceptions - doctors who won't perform abortions, sikhs who are permitted not to wear crash helmets as two examples.

This Catholic thing could be the thin end of an entirely different wedge of religious intollerance and where would that end? This country hs had a great tradition of freedom of religion. I would hate to see that end even if I don't share the beliefs.

Like I said, if the Catholic church was seeking to ban gay adoption altogether then I would be against what they were doing, but they just want to do their own thing their own way without interfering in anyone else's ways. I cannot see anything wrong in that. It harms no-one and in fact they have helped a great many people.

Similarly, if our church tried to stop other people drinking alcohol I'd be appalled but if alcohol drinking became compulsory (perhaps 'a glass of red wine a day or the NHS won't treat you') I would hope to be allowed to opt out for religious reasons.

[grego]

Tony Blair given the catholic church 2 years to conform to gay adoption law.
Personally I'd be all for it anyway.

[jambutty]

The point is academic now because, unless I misheard, no one will be exempt but the ruling doesn’t come into force for 21 months for the Catholic Church to enable it to get used to the idea and make whatever arrangements they see fit.