gay adoption - Page 15

WillowTheWhisp · 29-01-2007, 22:42

Which may well be a winding down of their services. In which case I hope they will still be permitted to offer support to children already placed.

garinda · 29-01-2007, 23:25

Happily this has been resolved, and the Catholic Church now has until the end of 2008 to decide what they want to do.

Discrimination of any kind is unacceptable in a modern, secular country.

As stated earlier, if all faith group's prejudices and beliefs were to be exempt from the law of the land, there would be chaos.

"Islamists deny human rights to gays. An attempt by the United Nations to include gay people in anti-discrimination measures is being derailed by a coalition of Islamic countries. UN sources said that Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia were doing everything in their power to stop the resolution. They hope to delay the vote long enough to kill it off entirely. Secretary of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association in Britain, George Broadhead, commented that all Muslim countries outlawed homosexuality, and the penalties for those convicted ranged from prison, flogging, execution by a variety of perverted methods – such as throwing the victim off a cliff or pushing a stone wall on to them. "The record of these countries on human rights in general is bad enough, but when it comes to gay human rights, they are disgusting""
NSS Newsline 2003 Apr 25

WillowTheWhisp · 29-01-2007, 23:29

Let's hope this never becomes a muslim country.

garinda · 29-01-2007, 23:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

Let's hope this never becomes a muslim country.

The heir to the throne already wants to be defender of 'faiths', rather than just faith, meaning the Church of England.

WillowTheWhisp · 29-01-2007, 23:36

I would rather have a recognised national religion which tolerated the existence of others and worked with, alongside and around them. The prospect of the possibility of one religion which could force its standards onto others and even those of no faith is scary.

garinda · 29-01-2007, 23:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I would rather have a recognised national religion which tolerated the existence of others and worked with, alongside and around them. The prospect of the possibility of one religion which could force its standards onto others and even those of no faith is scary.

I too would defend anyone's rights to their own religious beliefs, but if they happened to endager the freedoms of others, and by that I just don't mean homosexuals, then I would fight it every step of the way from happening in this country.

cashman · 29-01-2007, 23:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Happily this has been resolved, and the Catholic Church now has until the end of 2008 to decide what they want to do.

Discrimination of any kind is unacceptable in a modern, secular country.

As stated earlier, if all faith group's prejudices and beliefs were to be exempt from the law of the land, there would be chaos.

"Islamists deny human rights to gays. An attempt by the United Nations to include gay people in anti-discrimination measures is being derailed by a coalition of Islamic countries. UN sources said that Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia were doing everything in their power to stop the resolution. They hope to delay the vote long enough to kill it off entirely. Secretary of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association in Britain, George Broadhead, commented that all Muslim countries outlawed homosexuality, and the penalties for those convicted ranged from prison, flogging, execution by a variety of perverted methods – such as throwing the victim off a cliff or pushing a stone wall on to them. "The record of these countries on human rights in general is bad enough, but when it comes to gay human rights, they are disgusting""
NSS Newsline 2003 Apr 25

that is completely NUTS it mirrors the BNP. no wonder some folks are prejudice.

garinda · 30-01-2007, 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

that is completely NUTS it mirrors the BNP. no wonder some folks are prejudice.

Strangely enough David Cameron today compared some Muslim groups, which included the Muslim Council of Britain, a body which has advised the current government's policies, to extreme right wing groups such as the BNP, and their mirrored intolerances.

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/index_299f...4ff107a9d.html

steeljack · 30-01-2007, 00:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by grego

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

It will be intersting to see if Tony and Cheri get the Papel/Papal knighthoods they have been groveling for

cashman · 30-01-2007, 00:39

jeez cashy thinkin like a bloody tory.

cashman · 30-01-2007, 00:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Strangely enough David Cameron today compared some Muslim groups, which included the Muslim Council of Britain, a body which has advised the current government's policies, to extreme right wing groups such as the BNP, and their mirrored intolerances.

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/index_299f...4ff107a9d.html

strange one that! there were stories about 30-40 years ago about the conservatives secretly funding the BNP,has the leopard changed its spots?

jedimaster · 30-01-2007, 02:19

i fear i may have joined this conversation a little late as it seems to have evolved rather rapidly, however here's my twopenneth for what it's worth.
for one i have no problem with gay couples adopting children i believe same sex partnerships can provide just as loving a home to a child as any however i do see one small problem. And that is the general wellbeing of the child among his/her peers. As we well know children can be cruel and heartless creatures (not all mind you) and at the first sign of another child being "different" are quick to jump on this and could leave the said child wide open to abuse and bullying.and although the adopted child may grow to be more tolerant of such things as gay relationships in some cases it may swing the other way(no pun intended) and leave the child with quite severe issues.

and point number 2. imho it would be impossible to even consider exemption of any kind for any organisation from these new laws as to even consider it is to leave the door wide open for anybody and his dog to say i'm exempt from being prejudiced and i can do/say what i like (well if it's good enough for them why not everyone else). how can you possibly build a society on a system of one rule for one and another for everyone else(hmmmm sounds familiar).

WillowTheWhisp · 30-01-2007, 09:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

I too would defend anyone's rights to their own religious beliefs, but if they happened to endager the freedoms of others, and by that I just don't mean homosexuals, then I would fight it every step of the way from happening in this country.

I totally agree with you - one set of rights should never be permitted to endanger or intrude upon the freedom of others.

Which again is why I see co-existence not being a problem. In fact I see it as the only way of allowing the tollerance of others. The Catholic church say "You do your thing your way and we'll do our thing our way." and I say. "OK I have no problem at all with that."

For example, the Catholic church will not perform marriages of divorced people. Our church has no problem with that. The law of this land says that divorced people are permitted to remarry but doesn't go to the point of insisting that the Catholic church must perform such marriages. Is the Catholic church flaunting the law by refusing to do so? My view is that Catholic should be allowed to have that restriction so long as they don't try to force it onto anyone else, which they don't.

The law has neatly sidestepped a potential problem with 'gay marriages' which could have caused confrontation with churches if gay couples had approached churches asking to be married and being refused. Instead of gay marriage what we have in fact is a 'civil partnership' and churches do not have the legal right to perform such unions so the law in fact was created in such a way that there was a built in exemption from the start. Yet I have not noticed that there has even been one complaint raised on this point. Strange? Well in my view not really - nobody from any church has tried to stop civil ceremonies between same sex couples even though they do not perform them - the couple is pointed towards a register office where the ceremony can be performed.

Billcat · 30-01-2007, 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

For example, the Catholic church will not perform marriages of divorced people. Our church has no problem with that. The law of this land says that divorced people are permitted to remarry but doesn't go to the point of insisting that the Catholic church must perform such marriages.

The basic difference is that marriages can have a religious component, which is in addition to the civil component set up under law. Adoptions don't. If memory serves, the Catholic Church regards marriage as a sacrament. Adoption is not a sacrament. While religions may have adoption agencies, they do not have legal or religious jurisdiction over the adoption. It's a comparison of apples and oranges.

Marriages can happen in a church. Adoptions cannot (at least, not in the USA - I'm assuming that the UK is the same?).

jambutty · 30-01-2007, 17:13

Why is it that some people, in fact, many people cannot just accept that everyone can have an opinion about something that may be different to theirs in whole or in part and then set out and attack a differing opinion?

After all it does state at the head of each thread: “common sense in here please. Decent serious discussions to be enjoyed by everyone!”

This thread is a typical example. Mancie opened the thread with a simple question. Should the Catholic Church be exempt from the proposed adoption laws? Although his way of phrasing the question was different.

I made my views quite clear but views are not much use unless they are qualified with reasons, so I also gave my reasons. That is called HAVING AN OPINION. So did other contributors.

And what happens next? Arguments about who is right and who is wrong that degenerated into name calling in an attempt to belittle what was an honest opinion by someone and in one case casting disgusting allegations.

If nothing else the thread gets dragged off topic and no moderator steps in to bring it back on topic.

Is it too much to ask that everyone respects the OPINION of another and they just present their own OPINION without all the nastiness that happens? Thus anyone reading the whole thread can make a balanced judgement on the issue and decide for themselves if they need to change their opinion or not.

I guess maybe it is!