As a confirmed agnostic (too cowardly to be an athiest), I struggle between the right to exercise one's religion and the right of secular society. I believe that gays should have the right to adopt. However, the rights of Catholic agencies to abide by their tenets should be respected in this case as it does not take away the rights of gays to adopt completely. Sometimes democracy means protecting the rights of some groups to which we habitually look askance (all religious groups not just Catholics). We must be careful of the tyranny of the majority.

All faiths have one thing in common, manipulation of the truth.
One thing is for sure......we are not alone :)

I really hope this isn't true and that the Executive won't give in to threats from the church.

The religious right shout 'jump' and the Labour Party answer, "How High?'
Never trust a politician.

This whole furore is supposed to be about what is best for children 'in care'. It has been hi-jacked by religious extremists and Gay rights advocates. In real life there are only a few same sex couples who wish to adopt. I would expect that they would be sensible enough to steer well clear of any faith based adoption agency. Any couple who did apply to one would be deliberately looking for a confrontation and therefore not concerned about the welfare of the child.
I though that this issue had already been settled by the Scottish Parliament and that faith based agencies had been assured that they could politely advise same sex couples to apply to another agency. Now, with Westminster trying to amend Scottish legislation the whole row is on the boil again. Meanwhile, who cares for the children?

Is that Father sunshine?

The Scotsman fairly keeps this topic going -good use of tabloidesque headlines but does it sell papers??

#2 Scullion. Hi, I tend to call myself a non denominational Christian in that I understand the message but apart from Christ I have no great understanding of the self appointed messengers. It is right and correct that the persecution of some parts of society should be removed but not at the expense of the beliefs of others. Not the easiest thing to achieve but well worth a discussion between the interested parties. Personally if this argument never made the newspapers again, I would vote it a win for the rest of the world.

I agree with Scullion (#2). After all, the catholic adoption agency is up and running.

There are TWO religious adoption agencies in this country, both Catholic - St Andrew's in Edinburgh, and St Margaret's in Glasgow. Both were invited to provide detailed feedback on the adoption bill, but only St Margaret's did so. And what did they say? They said that vulnerable children shouldn't be exposed to the homophobia of society, and that while they accepted that all people were capable of being good parents, they opposed the placing of vulnerable children with same sex parents because of what the homophobia of wider society might mean.

So Archbishop Conti is not speaking on behalf of the Catholic adoption agencies; he is trying to score points against gay rights using young lives as the ammunition. And not only did the Catholic adoption agencies not claim the right to have a conscience clause - no other adoption agency did either. So who is this man fighting for? Nothing more than his own political ends.

This is a very careful campaig by the west coast Catholic media office, but those who believe in justice must stand against it. There is no justification for legal discrimination against gay people.

#14 Rules: Jews and Muslims may oppose homosexual adoption, but this story is NOT ABOUT jews and muslims now is it?

What I said was " The Catholic church bans its priests from entering into holy matrimony, yet it feels it has the right to comment on family values"

Who the hell do they think they are?

THE TAX PAYER FUNDS THESE CHURCH AGENCIES. These children would still find homes if there was no church around. There are plenty of other adoption agencies, most notable amongst them ... our local social work department!

Why are Councils giving money to the Catholic church to place children in homes when there are many better agencies out there. Barnados, NCH, etc

I grew up in 'care' with the church. I'd have taken two loving women over a scary celibate old man in black any time!

The Catholic Church should accept the law of the land and if that means closing its adoption agencies thewn that's fine. Other agencies will take over the work in ways that satisfy the law. We can't have people who take their direction from an imaginary friend talling the rest of us what to do.

#12 - It is right and correct that the beliefs of others should be tolerated but not at the risk of the persecution of some parts of society.

I'm sorry that the celibate archbishop feels "betrayed", but I don't think the rest of us owe him and his black coated chums any loyalty, or that he or any other religious leader is entitled to any special protection from the law.

That goes for the high heid panjandrum of the FPs, the rankin' rabbi, the top imam and the prime pastafarian too.

Also lets take a look at their charitable status and tax breaks, while we're at it.

With the SNPs promise of more 'faith' schools to peddle the superstitions of militant religionists, does that just leave LibDems and Greens to vote for? www.scottishmediamonitor.com.

I wonder what the SNP's take is on this.

Will the Krankies (wee Eck & Nicola) go all out for equality and risk losing all the sucking up credit they have aquired from the RC church lately or will Roseanna Cunninghame ride to the rescue again and propose another amendment to ban homosexual couples adopting?

In God we trust Incorporate.

Another poor attempt at blackmail, given the churches record with child abuse ! & the majority of comments here seem to echo that. Faith in itself is not a bad thing, it's the people we put our faith in is the problem. Religeon is in a downwards slide in Europe, which is why Govt's are looking at other ways to control the masses, like CCTV, ID chips, ASBO's etc etc etc.

27 Well said.

Dunno if Jesus was Gay or not Media 1 but he was certainly very happy.

#26 Good question. The Exec should just face them down, and if they go through with their threat to close the two adoption agencies in Scotland, then to protect the children the Exec should just take over the running of those agencies. Given that the agencies themselves have expressed no concerns about gay couple adoption, I suspect most of the staff could be retained and good continuation of service achieved.

Don't let the top hierarchies of the church blackmail the rest.

exactly 31. Barnados and NCH are champing at the bit...bring them in, retain the staff and lets gets these meddlesome priests out of the childcare business once and for all. They lost the right to 'care' for children a long time ago.

This could be the beginning of something great for Scotland.

I agree with Sheena #6. Given the numbers involved here, its highly unlikely that a gay couple would suffer the ignomony of being put through the mill by an RC adoption agency. And if they did apply, then the questions they would face about creating a lovely RC-approved home environment (homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-women) would be enough to send them elsewhere. So the reality is that this is a non-issue

Interesting to see how all those who oppose discrimination are happy to discriminate against anyone with Christian views.

Just for the record, christianity doesn't discriminate against homosexuals, not does it regard homosexuality as a sin. It does oppose the practising of homosexual relationships and no practising christian could willingly place a child into such a relationship.

Why do homosexuals believe that their rights are greater than mine?

Let the religious (ie, Catholic) agencies close down. Adoption should be a matter for the secular authorities anyway.

And Conti can feels as "betrayed" as he likes! HIS Church has betrayed enough kids in the past to warrant THEIR closure!

My dad was born Catholic, but raised in an orphanage as a Proddy. I heard enough preists go on and on at him over the years about going to Mass on a Sunday.

No time for religion and I don't like them trying to brainwash kids!

This is not about "the right to adopt", or "gay adoption" (whatever that conjures up!); it is about recognizing that it should be illegal to discriminate/deny goods and services to people on the grounds of their sexuality. It is unfair, plain and simple. If "conscience" really is the issue, why is the church not including unmarried couples in their protest? Or couples where one member has been divorced? All of this goes against Catholic teaching.

The truth is that it is still "ok" to discriminate against gay people, and the exec is trying to sort that with this legislation.

Excellent posts, 15 and 31.

Never thought that I’d see the day when I’d agree with the Catholic Church and I find it disturbing that no other prominent Christian Church is reported having made some kind of statement.
Listen, folks – to hell with the kids and what’s right for them! Let’s all use this to jump on the bandwagon for our own selfish megalomania agendas. Points deleted from now on for people who specifically stick to the subject.

Because someone is trying to ban gays from doing something that is open to others. No gay person is trying to stop you praying...that's up to you and between you and your god. No gay is trying to make you live and believe as they might live and believe...yet some christians want all of society to live by their rules.

There are way more gays in Scotland than practicing catholics.

why should hard working, tax paying gay people be dictated to be a small group of religious people...many of whom (myse;f included) don't believe anything the church leadership says anymore.

A couple of people have mentioned that the Catholic adoption agencies receive funding from the state. Is this true? My understanding is that these are voluntary bodies, and the only benefit they receive is their tax-free status. As all local authorities are obliged to provide their own adoption services, I'd be surprised if they were funding external agencies too. Can anyone clarify?

34 Think you are missing the Point .people Think the RC church Should not be trying to influence Politics especially when they Dont have such a Good reputation .The child abuse in the Church is Riddled with it ,
May God if their is one have mercy on them.

Why is it that in the 21st century, in a wealthy, secular country we are still relying on dogmatic religious charities to protect the most vulnerable members of our society?

If the Catholic Church wishes to take its ball away and not play anymore then treat them like the spoiled schoolchildren they profess to be and ensure that the state run agencies are funded, staffed and equiped to do the job properly!

34: In answer to the last line of your post: Because a lot of them are self-obsessives who are looking for an excuse to make themselves appear as victims when in fact few people really give a toss about them. Say one negative thing, however minor, about homosexuals and they will come out with the usual response: "homophobia", or "Are you sure you're not a repressed homosexual". Predictable as the sun rising and setting.

I don't believe in discriminating against anyone in general but there are instances where groups of people can feel discriminated against when in fact there may be a reason for what at first sight may seem like discrimination. If I can give you one, possible exotic, example: A few months ago I saw an advert in the paper for a Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender support officer and the advert stated that the applicant must be from that small subset of the population. Did I, who don't fit the specification, feel discriminated against? Yes, and bloody glad about it too, frankly! Discrimination works both ways. Sometimes there are reasons why some people are excluded from some things.

Nope they really do recieve funding from the state via the Social work departments of the areas they operate in. They also can apply for direct funding grants from central Government and other public bodies. But the overwhelming bulk of their money comes from Local Authorities.

38: More gays than Catholics? Get real. I belive between 2 and 4% of the population are gay and I'm pretty sure a far higher percentage are practising Catholics. Quite why so may people would be so stupid and gullible as to believe in god is beyond me, but there you go....

42, feel free to exclude yourself from whatever you want. just don't try to impose it on others.

There are thousands and thousands of jobs which are restricted to groups. eg. in a refuge for female victims of domestic violence the jobs are ringfenced for women only.

44 Well said.

The cenus says 6% identify as gay.

#37 If anyone is using these vulnerable kids as pawns in a political game it is the upper echelons of the Catholic church. The two Catholic adoption agencies in Scotland care too much about the children to support this attitude. They have stated that sexual orientation shouldn't be a bar to parenthood. They can see that from the perspective of doing what's best for these kids, opening up adoption to more suitable homes is a good thing. In contrast, what Conti recognises is that if he can force a "special dispensation" into the anti-discrimination laws, then that will give him a foothold to continue to justify attacks on LGBT people. He doesn't appear to care that in creating this political attack point, he is actively harming the rights of children meant to be in the care of the church.

Let's do what's right for the kids; let's do what the adoption agencies themselves say they want: let's bring fairness to adoption.

I am a Christian but not a Catholic and all I can see in most of the responses above is a 'we must knock the Catholics syndrome'
There are good and bad Catholics as there are good and bad in all faiths. That does not mean the beliefs of their faith should be belittled or that they should be forced to go against their beliefs, that smacks of dictatorship and this is supposed to be a democracy (isn't that why so many died for us?)
In the same vein homosexuals have a right to their beliefs but that doesn't mean that we should all be forced to accept their beliefs any more than we are all being forced to be Catholics (or any other faith)
Those of you who say you afre agnostics or atheists are free to be such. Christians, Jews, Muslims etc are also free to be such.

44, On census day (happens every year in the RC church) we were told that 20% of RCs are practicing. 20% of 800,000 is way smaller than 6% of 5,000,000.

49. If you have different beliefs from the gay community that is your right and good for you. You should not have the right to force legislation on others which affects how they can live their lives.

I'd never propose banning catholics from adoption.

There can't be one rule for the religious and one rule for the rest of us. We cannot allow an "opt out" on a law designed to stop discrimination or it won't actually stop discrimination and the religious bigots who refuse to accept gays as being as likely to be decent upstanding people as anyone else will continue to think that such views are acceptable.

There should be no room in the UK for bigotry or discrimination whatever religious symbol it chooses to hide behind.

What was really said by the Catholic adoption Agencies to the Parliament:

Stephen Small (St Andrew's Children's Society)
"That is the crux of the matter. Clearly, the best chance for every child comes from being in a home in which they are loved and cared for by adults. If that cannot be with their birth family, it should be with a substitute family that can provide that. A person's gender or sexuality does not determine how loving they will be to a child. I accept that that is an issue. However, we have an opportunity to learn from the experience in other countries, such as our neighbours south of the border. In a short period, we could readily get a sense of how the measures are panning out and get feedback from children. At that point, we might be able to make a better decision for children."

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/edu...

President of the St Andrew's Children's Society is one Cardinal O'Brien.

#42.
Absolute rubbish, and very narrow minded. You forget (or don't know) that homosexuality until relatively recently was either illegal or classed as a mental illness... despite the fact that being gay isn't a life choice, it's just who you are. Now, I'm not for or against gay adoption but I understand and support the rights of a minority of the community who have been supressed and discriminated against for hundreds of years, for no other reason than bigotry and predjudice.
Fortunately, we are beginning to live in more enlightened times, although I'm sure that there are still religious zealouts out there who would have homosexuals burned at the stake.
Two other points....firstly, it makes me laugh how these religious freaks are so strongly opposed to homosexual relationships 'because the bible tells them so', yet they ignore the thousands of other dictates in the bible which don't suit them. Bigots using religion as an excuse ? I suspect so.
And secondly..religion doesn't give you an excuse to ignore the law. You can't excuse prejudice on grounds of faith. Religion has to bend to the greater good of society, instead of being stuck in some arcane medieval backward looking world.
Of course, the Catholic church is unable to do this, or they would risk losing credibility and with it the billions that pour in every year.
It makes me sick.

#34 conservative:

Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

Lots of other good stuff like it in the Bible including stoning adulterers.

Religion is irrelevant and should be consigned to the dustbin as have other medieval practices.

Now leave me alone, I am off to worship the Easter Bunny.

#49 - apples and oranges - Catholicism is a religion; a Catholics (or anyone who chooses to practice religion) is entitled to his or her beliefs, of course.

Sexuality is not a religion; it's part of what you are born with, like brown eyes, or the shape of your nose. So it's not really the same thing. Think harder...

http://platosway.blogspot.com

There's quite simply no room for religion in politics or social policy.

All too often it clashes with common sense and by it's very nature it can't compromise with the needs of people.

It's odd how they like to alienate good people and can't see that it's leading to their downfall.

As a result, the church has been left wondering why everyone's turned away from religion, when it's simply because they themselves have turned from the principles that their church is founded on...

They used to say the Church of England was just the Tory party at prayer. Now in Scotland you can add the Catholic Church is just the Scottish Labour party at prayer.

It is ironic that the Catholic Church claim that they are the victims of discrimination in Scotland, but see nothing wrong about discriminating against other.

Let him that is without sin cast the first stone... and all that.

Hypocrisy and superstitious mumbo-jumbo are a deadly brew.

#58
Well put.
The only thing I would disagree with is that I suspect that the principles that the Catholic church was founded on were greed, control and intolerance.
I doubt if the church has turned from these 'principles' in the slightest.

I'd be interested to hear the views of Lucy Buchanan on this one as she seems to have her finger on the pulse of the nation.

Perhaps someone can correct me, but am I right in thinking Cardinal Mario Conti never wrote to the Prime Minister to express his feeling of "betrayal" by any of his paedo priests? And here's us being led to believe he has the welfare and protection of children at heart. Wake up, Scotsman, and start employing journalists who aren't scared to ask the real questions of these people.

Some of the comments above are bordering on the "don't you oppress me" sequence in the Life of Brian.
People in this country are utterly deluded about equality. Nice concept, but regrettably we live in a society where a very small minority own a very large chunk of everything. Do they have more, or better rights than me? Too right they do. Just see what happens when a rich or famous person goes to court.
In the clamour for equality, people shouting freedom trample all over everyone else's freedom - whilst demanding people change their opinions. There is another word (or two) for attempts to force people to change their minds against their will.
The last few year's has seen the "equality" agenda pushed to the point where there is a de facto tyranny of the minority in this country - pandered to by an increasingly absurd Government. To be in possession of a religion inspired view of morality is to be dismissed as a crank and reviled as a bigot. How very liberal!

I was under the impression that state and church were seperated years ago.
They are entitled to their opinion like anyone else BUT they must abode by the law and we should NEVER modify laws for any religion.

Some very good posts on this from people who have first hand knowledge it appears.

No 30. He was happy on Good Friday!

No 49 Well said I agree with you.

One thing that no one has touched on is the children, has there been any research around children being brought up in same sex couples. Surely this is the number one issue.

#64 There are very few studies, but the two best known and most commonly cited are, I think, an Australian one and a north american (possibly Canadian) one, both of which suggest that children brought up by same-sex couples have as good a quality of life as any other children. I will try to find the references for you. There is certainly no evidence that I have ever seen for any concern over the welfare of children brought up in same-sex households. Quite a common finding is that on average such children do better than others, and it is speculated that that is because the effort that gay people have to expend to be able to bring up children means a level of commitment is necessary; whereas some straight couples find themselves faced with unwanted parenthood. LGBT parenthood is very rarely unwanted.

Also, I would have to say that your point is unfair. Many people in this debate have focused on the rights of children, noting in particular that allowing more loving families to adopt is very much in the their best interests.

Once again proof if proof were needed that the last factor to be considered in the equation is the children.
Scotland has the highest rates of child poverty in Europe.
Scotland puts children in prison, having first terrorised them with dawn raids, or luring families to detention centres so they can lock them up.
Lets here what the Catholic church is doing about that. Lets here what the Scottish Executive are doing, nothing because they have to keep Westminster happy.
This Executive is bending over forwards to appease the Catholic church. A church that practises religious apartheid against children through the use of faith schools.
Hypocrisy and religious and political dogma, what a disgusting way to treat children. But then what is new, in either organisation?

At the last religious census, figured showed there were 202,000 Roman Catholics who attended church on a regular basis. That's 4% of the Scottish population.

That figure is said to drop to about 80,000 on a cold Sunday in January.

Roman Catholic's are a very small minority in this country.

The fact the the Roman Catholic Church has such sway over all things political is testimony to it's lackies in the Scottish Labour Party. Hopefully one day we'll get a government who'll have the balls to tell them to shut up and butt out.

This thread has turned into an anti Catholic mud slinging session, none of which is new of funny. Please try to divorce yourself from your own prejudices before commenting.

The Catholic church can not ever accept homosexuality as morally acceptable, and rightly so.

By creating legislating to force acceptance of homosexuality onto Christian groups, the goverment is putting itself on a collision course with Christians, who belive homosexuality to be a corruption of human nature and morally wrong.

THAT is what this issue is about, its NOT about the Catholic church trying to interfer in politics.

Speaking as a Catholic myself, I just wish that right-wingers in the church like Mario Conti had shown half the interest in victims of paedophile priests that they've shown in homosexuals.

#56 When the religious right start to quote that section of Leviticus, I'm puzzled as to why they don't put it in its proper context with the rest of the "abominations", including:

Leviticus 11:10-12
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination; whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, (i.e. shellfish) that shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 19:19
Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

67 Well said.They have No say in the irish republic either.Thats why Eire has been able to express its true identity.Without being Groomed or molded into Something they are not ,

Some people blames tha Catholics for everything. Perhaps if you grow up, and act responsibly we will not be referred to as the Bloody catholcs, like we don't refer you lot as anything else other then humans. It clearly shows that you have small menmtality with eveything else.

65 Duncan, thanks mate. I take back my comment on no mentioning the kids but they are the most important issue here. If there are no adverse effects on them what's the big issue, surely it's about what's best for the child not the parents nor the church.

71 if you had read the comments Properly You would understand .Why should any person including cathoilics listen to the church that has a reputation for child abuse ,END

68...I'm a catholic christian....don't presume to tell me what I believe. Conti and co started this when they started trying to turn Scotland into a theocracy. My own beliefs should never be imposed on anyone and no one should be forced to live live under restrictions that I as a catholic can voluntarily choose to live under.

faith is a choice...sexual orientation isn't.

The government isn't forcing me as christian to do, say, believe or accept anything. it's trying to create a society where people like me can't oppress anyone else and where different groups have equality.

that's what this is all about. The RC Church made the same fuss about section 28, about Gay weddings, about the age of consent and about anything to do with gays they have reacted in the same way.

This is nothing to do with kids in care and everything to do with the Church heirarchy's haterd of gays....and I say the heirarchy because I don't know a single other fellow catholic practicing or not who agrees with the church's position on gay people...who God himself (ok possibly herself) carved in the palm of his/her hand.

#62 says "To be in possession of a religion inspired view of morality is to be dismissed as a crank and reviled as a bigot."

There are reasons for this. For example, the moral position that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a widely held view irrespective of religion. It's an example of a shared social morality that humans seem to display. To claim that this viewpoint is religiously inspired would make you a crank in my book.

But I have sympathy on the bigotry issue. There are bigots of all kinds, religious, non-religious, and anti-religious. Fortunately, none of these woud pass the suitability test for adoptive parents which requires tolerance to other viewpoints.

Conservative’s statement #34 requires, at least, some clarification when he/se says that Christianity does not regard homosexuality as a sin. Yes it does!
The bible teaches that sexual relationships should be carried out within a marriage. A marriage in the biblical sense is clearly defined as an act of commitment between a man and a woman. Sexual relationships outwith that are sin. Active homosexuals are sinners. SINNER REPENT!
The Christian church has gone soft on this issue.
The Catholic Church, in this particular case, is taking a stand. Maybe too little too late. Active sinners who do not repent should not expect a God given and/or legal right, especially with vulnerable children.
No-one doubts the Catholic Church has had an appalling record with vulnerable children in the past. That does not debar them from taking a stand this time. I wish more Christian Churches would support them. With this issue - more power to their elbow!
AMEN BROTHER!

"However, the rights of Catholic agencies to abide by their tenets should be respected in this case as it does not take away the rights of gays to adopt completely." Scullion 2#

Ah, now I know what Rosa Parks should have done in 1955 in Montgomery, US, when the bus driver told her to relinguish her seat for a white woman. She should have respected the driver's honestly held belief that she was inferior beacuse of her skin colour and waited for a fully integrated bus coming behind.

Amd Em.C.Spiteri 71#, I think you are over the top. In any case, given the Catholic church's latest initiatives on deprivation of Catholics, reported on 14 January in this paper, there may indeed be an issue to be examined, but Cardinal O'Brien's and Co clearly blame everybody else for the situation. They have made up their minds who is responsible, and it's not anything the Catholic authorities have done. It would be nice occasionally if the Church authorities admitted that their own stances and attitudes, and their incessant attempts to force their own agenda, as in the gay issue here, have had something to do with the sentiment that some have towards it, and for the plight that some of its adherents find themselves in. .

What is that the churches and in particular the catholic church makes them believe that they have any right to special consideration than any other organisation?

As a number of posters have already highlighted not only does the catholic church represent a very small % of the Scottish population but its record on child care and indeed child abuse throughout all the world is neither exemplary nor christian by their own teachings.

Typical of their narrow interpretation of 'important' texts they again misinterpret the meaning of the statement made by the Executive assuming or wishing to believe that:-

<quote>"Ministers gave assurances that the services provided by the Catholic Adoption agencies was valued by the Executive and every effort would be made to protect the position of Catholic agencies.</quote>

means that they would not be subject to the law and given special dispensation because they believe and have faith in the 'absolute' truth as written in a work of fiction.

How really christian of them to threaten the welfare of the very children they purport to protect by their very restricted, narrow-minded, bigoted and hypocritical worldview of all things 'moral'.

Based, of course, on texts written by equally misguided commentators of their time formed in an age of ignorance and limited experience about almost everything rational or anything based on reason or understanding of the 'real' world as most of us see it.

Oh, and I forgot - there are US precedents from 2006. See

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=42906

http://bostonworks.boston.com/news/articles/2006/03/26/sa...

Note that the Catholic agencies there had actually placed children with gay couples prior to being closed.

Sounds like double standards to me.
I think you will find gay bars are full of happily married catholic men .But they dont look at themselves as gay or doing wrong

68. Lex

I think Roman Catholic Simon at 69. has answered you prefectly. You'll no doubt tell us all he is an anti-Catholic Roman Catholic!

You paranoia knows no bounds.

eric # 81

Please advise on how you define the sexual orientation of a bar. Statistically the majority of gays in Scotland are Protestant, which explains the support above for the militant gay agenda.

These kids, which will be a mix of babies, toddlers, adolescents and teenagers...some of them will undoubtedly be homosexual....so I'l say it again...all children should be placed with families that are not homophobic....families who will be able to support them when they are faced with bullying and harrassment, due to their sexuality. No religious folk who believe homosexuality is a sin should be allowed to adopt.....think of the damage they COULD do (please note the word could) to a homosexual child....why they could diddle with it in an effort to turn it straight. Now where have we heard that before. Seriously folks this issue is about the welfare of children....ALL children...the ones who grow up knowing that they are different and prefer boys to girls or girls to boys, or even feel they are a girl in a boys body....because you know, this is why we are having this 'debate' in the first place n'est pas? Children need love, support (some more than others) and understanding...they dont need someone telling them that homosexuality is a sin blah blah blah.....extremely damaging and detrimental to their development as an adult....especially if they happen to be gay or lesbian!

Anybody seen Bending Wrist?.....whats up bendy wendy too many folk to take on....aw diddums!

74# & 75# well said sirs.

People use the word Bigot too often I feel and especially churchmen of all orders.
When you lookup thr meaning of the word itself and here it is form the oxford english ;
a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.

surely the clregy of almost all religions are the true bigots and not the populace who question values.

It’s a funny old world! There are many people above who have posted about the inequality and injustices of the power and influence that the church has had in the past; how it controlled the masses through fear etc. They seem quit happy now for that same power to be transferred to the homosexuals!

Jimmy the Hip 80#

"There are so many people here who would side with an increasingly militant gay agenda than the churches."

Some people are siding with human rights before religious rights, which is the way the ECHR works. Some people are siding with equal rights rather than the right to practise prejudice and discrimination based on irrational beliefs.

"it's an excuse for the sectarians amongst you to trot out your anti-Catholic bile"

A lot of statements from cardinals and archbishops so far this century have been rabidly anti-secularist. Why is it OK to be anti-secularist and not OK to be anti-catholic? Why is it not OK to be anti an organisation that demands an opt-out from the laws that everyone else must live by? Why is it not OK to be anti a person or a minority group that insists it has a legal right to practise and preach prejudice against another minority group?

Substitute the Kirk for the Vatican in this debate, and I would still be anti-Kirk.

This is a group that wants all of us to pay for schools for its own exclusive use, where they select the children and the teachers and exclude those who don't believe in the same god story. That is the real sectarianism. Why is not OK to be anti that?

Cardinal O'Brien said last year he wanted to "rechristianise" Scotland. I suspect many Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs etc viewed that as sectarian.

I do hope, that this Catholic Adoption agency will not just accept Catholic parents only.

I think you will Find you are wrong .Its very even across the board .But very hypocritical of catholics Who seem to take their religion very serious.yet You can find them in gay bars ,

#83 Hitman, Why do you say I am paranoid?
I read the comment 69, I do not see how that post is relevant to 68. Perhaps you can answer it rather than point to another.

As I was happily settled by a Catholic adoption agency I believe that they do a wonderful job.They are only continuing the tradition of placing the child where the birth mother wishes...with those who have a Catholic ethos.
I have met my birth mother and she was helped by this agency when she was desperate.She hoped I would go to a good loving Catholic home.I did!
There are other agencies whose rules allow adoption to families with a different ethos if this is what the birth mother desires.
The church does not despise the "sinner"...but cares about them.

*34. Conservative.

"Interesting to see how all those who oppose discrimination are happy to discriminate anyone with Christian views".
There may be some substance in what you say, but the Roman Catholic Church are being discriminatory against homosexuals in this instance.

Kaffir # 88

What are you for?
I suspect that the Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs etc. can fight their own corner and will do what they need to to promote their particular faith. It's not only the Catholic church that is against this, the Church of England is too. If the Churches capitulate to this gay agenda then they the gay lobby will be advocating that the age of consent to sexual activity should be lowered. This is not about human rights it is about extending rights to an interest group.
There is someone posting here, ostensibly from Brighton but puts in a cluster of consonants (Jmhzx) in place of a name, he say's I'm a catholic christian....don't presume to tell me what I believe." He is presuming to tell all here from his pink palace what we should believe.
Catholics pay taxes, they should have a say in how they are spent, if they want their own schools who are you to say no?

The church can choose not too operate adoption agencies in this country, in fact that would be ideal.
It would be nice to teach children to love all at an early age. The law is passing and if the church does not like it, tough, their reign of terror ended a long time ago.

As for Ms Kelly, she has proven that she cannot be impartial in her role as Equalities Minister, well, do us all a favour and resign, and let us have someone in that position who will support equality for all!

Post 93.

Omitted the word "against" in quotation.

#37 other faith traditions have supported the position of the Catholic Church, but the media prefer to look to the Catholic Church or the Church of Scotland only for comment - knowing that they will get a headline from the Catholic Church.
I think Sheena #6 got things about right. I believe the reality will be that homosexual partners will go to a non-Catholic adoption agency if they are serious about adopting a child. I imagine the numbers of those registering to adopt will not be very great.
The Government and Scottish Exec. should chill out about this issue and remember that the vast majority of people in the country are opposed to adoption of children by homosexual partners, and also opposed to adoption of children to couples who are simply living together in a common-law relationship.
It's hard enough for married couples to adopt a child - try looking at ageism when applying to adopt, for example, or if you belong to a minority faith tradition - so the way the tabloids make it sound as though adopting a child is akin to shopping for a child at a supermarket is divorced from reality.
The reason that the Catholic Church is getting the prominence is that they actually run adoption agencies - as opposed to several other faith traditions (who agree with the RC Church on this) but don't operate adoption agencies.
There are too many posters here who use the words bigot, unchristian and hypocrit far too unthinkingly.
Most of us have our pet hates in some way or another - for example, I'm biased against vandals and other criminals who abuse society and seek to control their behaviour. Does that make me a control freak?

Doreen, they can't discriminate against other faiths. they would lose their state funding if they did. Apparantly, gay taxpayers money is good enough for them. they want the cash but not the customers.

A further consideration for those who are so rightly concerned about the interests of the child, equality issues and discrimination is that the most flagrant form of discrimination in this beloved democratic country of ours is against the unborn child -the most vulnerable of all.

In the name of equality, human rights and everyone getting a fair share . . . .
When do the Nazis, the BNP, peodophiles, dog baiters and serial killers all get their chance to influence the politicians, change the law to favour them and adopt vulnerable children?

The answer is that some people are deemed not fit to have that right or influence.

80

don't mean to be pedantic but James Hamilton was not a freemason and even if he was, i don't think the masons would turn him into a child killer the same as being a priest makes you a paedophile or someone who does a runner with the parish funds and the bishops cleaner

103....And heterosexuals are as opposed to homosexuals?

@80

Hello Kylie.

Thomas Hamilton was not a mason, neither did he have anything to do with the Church of Scotland.

The RC Church is simply being dicriminatory (again).

Incidentally, the biggest paedophile ring in the world is the catholic church.

What are your thoughts on Cardinal O Brien's actions referred to in the following article?

http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16496694&...

What are your thoughts on the hypocrisy of the church's stance, given the estimate in the USA that up to 20% of Priests are gay?

98#
Agreed
Catholic adoption agencies are currently involved in facilitating the adoption of over 4.000 children across Britain.Christian and other faith groups provide a vast number of welfare services across this country.On the basis of the anti-church posts above, this contribution must be construed as of little or no value and the country would be better without them.

If a couple of the same sex wish to adopt a child, why would they choose to go to a catholic adoption agency?

Just to create trouble?
aren't they just fuelling the gay rights movement?
If this is the case, it doesn't sound like they have the best intentions of the child at heart, but are more out to bring down the church for it's beliefs.

#80 Jimmy the hip.

“This all shows what a dismal place Scotland is to live. There are so many people here who would side with an increasingly militant gay agenda than the churches.”

I think people are siding with the LAW of the land.

“The numbers of people that attend Catholic churches is being contested. How many people attend Protestant churches as a proportion, probably less?”

Are those Protestants demanding a greater say than any other faith in our society? Is the Mod of the CoS in the papers daily trying to blackmail elected politicians into doing their bidding rather than that of the electorate who put them their in the first place?

“Incidentally, the worst paedophile in Scotland in recent years was Thomas Hamilton, a Protestant and Freemason.”

You of course have statistics on how this was the worst case and that he was a freemason, otherwise you are making this up in some sick way to try and defend the indefensible. In a society run on your logic the next person up for murder need only point at Shipman/West and say “Aye but he was worse”.

“This is not about rights for militant gays it's an excuse for the sectarians amongst you to trot out your anti-Catholic bile.”

If you are going to hop on the offended bus at least get your description right, surely it is anti-ROMAN catholic bile?

Last time I checked we lived in a democracy with freedom of speech and that includes the right to criticise politicians, churches etc. with whom I or any others may have a difference of opinion or viewpoint. Is your faith so insecure that it needs to hide behind the “bigotry” cry every time you are criticised?

98. The herald yesterday reported that only 200 children per year are adopted via catholic agencies.

#103

"The answer is that some people are deemed not fit to have that right or influence."

100% correct and surely if the Government funds the organisations that make this decision then they should abide by the laws set out by that Govermnment?

I still cannot for the life of see why we have a religious based adoption group.
I wonder at why this is required and why (if I am) should the taxpayer fund it?
We have adoption agencies already in place.
We have people requiring to adopt.
We have children requiring adoption.
Where a request by a parent for a particular faith or whatever is made then surely it will be taken into account by the agency.
So I see no need for faith based adoption agencies unless of course there are other reasons as yet explianed by posters.

#110 Jmhzx : Reminds me of the story of all the starfish stranded on the beach with the receding tide. Two people walking along the beach and one keeps picking up starfish and throwing them back into the sea. "What's the point of that," said his companion, "there are so many thousands stranded: you can't make a difference by throwing a few back into the sea."
"Well, I made a difference to that one," said his pal as he threw another starfish into the water.

Simple little story... but 200 children placed with loving parents is not insignificant.

BRENDAMck #111

The other side of the coin is that if the government chooses to fund such organisations, then it is reasonable to assume that such organisations are deemed suitable by the government! If they are suitable then they should be listened to
Another interesting contrast is that the Catholic Church are threatening to withdraw (I understand that the Catholic Church approves of the withdrawal method – that’s another story!) but that the Government is not so far threatening to withdraw funding from various Catholic (and other Christian church) organisations!

"Catholics pay taxes, they should have a say in how they are spent, if they want their own schools who are you to say no?" Jimmy 94#

Several problems with this, Jimmy the Hip. We all pay taxes. But that doesn't mean any of us has a right to have some of the money spent on us to the explicit and legal exclusion of everybody else. Gays pay taxes - do you think they want one effect to be that the services they pay for are denied them due to irrational religious dogma? Aren't gay people who pay taxes allowed to have a say in how their money is spent?

"If they want their own schools who are you to say no?" They can have their own schools if they pay for them. The state should not subsidise religious apartheid on any level. Personally I would like all schools to be open to all, not just state ones. Remember that Catholic Adoption Agencies get public money too.

But where does it stop? Are all our public services to be carved up along religious lines, with every religion that demands special privilege and exclusive treatment getting it, and little signs in schools, hospitals, shops, hotels etc that say "no xxxxxxxs" according to personal dogma? Is that your recipe for social cohesion and integration? Why stop at schools? Why not exclusive hospitals? You wouldn’t I presume advocate separate schools or hospitals purely on the grounds of race, religion etc?

And you might ask yourself why Ruth Kelly praised Britain’s Hindus last year as a model of integration into British society without having diluted their profound religious beliefs. There has not been a single exclusive Hindu faith school. Makes you think.

How many of them stay together and are a success

I hear you 113. I was responding to an earlier claim that 4000 children a year were being adopted via the 7 catholic agencies.

i was just querying the figures not the principal. I should have made that clearer.

oops...Principle...

that's a catholic education for you!!!!!!!!!

ok! ok! don't go mad just a wee joke.

There are many in here who continuously regress to slurring the chuch as a group of paedophiles.

I read an article that listed the occupations which have been found to contain the most paedophiles, and in fact priests and members of the church came in much further down the list with employees of child protection agencies much closer to the top.

I do not deny that there have been cases of child abuse within the church, (however nowhere near as many as some people think) but this has been commited by people who should never have became priests and have infultrated the church to benefit there own perversions.

Because of the negative propaganda we now have people like #7 frodo the scot and #24 Media 1 who will continue to rant, painting the whole church with the paedophile brush without any knowledgable basis for there reasoning.

At the end of the day this has a negative impact on all religion.

Forget principle and the moral standpoint - it all comes down to money - this religious group could run an adoption agency in line with their principles (i.e. no gays) but they would get council money or support....
No one is forcing them to act against their principles.

I would not want to denigrate the work of the two Catholic adoption agencies in Scotland. They are hard-working, have the children's well-being at heart, and do the very best job they can. It's also true to say that while they deal with a minority of the adoptions in this country, they tend to take more of the "difficult" cases, which has evolved into a kind of specialism for them. I wouldn't want them to close.

However, this valuable work does not have to be done under the auspices of the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church feels it is unable to give fair and equal service to all people regardless of their sexual orientation, then in an orderly and measured manner, with care for the children as a primary concern, they need to get out of the adoption business and transfer control of these valuable agencies into the hands of an organisation which has no such problems with treating people fairly. Bernardo's and NCH could take them over quite effectively.

The Catholic Church may hold unpleasant and misguided views about gay people, and preach them from the pulpit with full freedom; but it cannot deny services to people on the basis of those views. It needs either to conform to society's belief in equal treatment, or get out of the adoption business altogether.

I think the church has brought it on themselves ,You see the way communities react when a Paedo is in their community .Why should the church be treated any differently .My family stopped going in the late 80s because of this,

Whatever the rights or wrongs of it my initial reaction is that it shouldn't happen. Not for any religious reasons but I can imagine their lives being made a misery at school by other children who I'm sure everyone will agree can be pretty nasty.

#114

Following that logic if they refuse to abide by the law, any law, then surely they will no longer be suitable for that funding?

#121 Well said!

#115 You said

We all pay taxes. But that doesn't mean any of us has a right to have some of the money spent on us to the explicit and legal exclusion of everybody else. Gays pay taxes - do you think they want one effect to be that the services they pay for are denied them due to irrational religious dogma? Aren't gay people who pay taxes allowed to have a say in how their money is spent?

The fact that the church is against gay adoption does not exclude a gay couple from adopting from another agency that is also tax funded.
What you are saying is that the right of religion should not be allowed, but the right of a gay person should be upheld.

Nobody is forcing gay people to use Catholic or Christian Adoption agencies. They can go through their local authority. However I am quite certain that if a child in need of adoption had already been raised as catholic or moslem, the authorities would do everything they could to place them with a catholic or moslem family. So doesn't it make sense that if a 3 year old has been identified as being gay they would be placed with gay partners ? If the child is gay then place them with gays. If the child is not then don't!! Simple innit ?

Well said Duncan 121#

It is interesting that in the Boston case in the US, some of the "difficult to place" children had been placed by the Catholic agency with gay people. We saw Archbishop Nicholls on Newsnight last night, admitting to Paxman that Catholic agencies had placed children with gay singles. So having done that, does he want the kids returned if that 'gay single' later becomes a 'gay couple'? The mental gymnnastics here are stunning.

Here's the link to Paxman - it's about 20 minutes in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm

Are children religious?

Some of the posts on here are a joke.

I thought the best way for children to be brought up is in a loving and caring environment. It does not have to be man and woman although personally I would prefer this, but it's the loving and caring part that is important.

I think gay couples should be able to adopt if they are fit for the purpose (stable relationship etc..) and be judged as a heterosexual couple would be.

What does annoy me is the fact that they call it a right of theirs to adopt? I don't think it is a right, it's about the children not about them and that should never be forgotten. These are not pets were talking about but human beings.

As for the criticism of the RC church this is unfair. The church believes homosexuality is a sin, they are not going to change that just because it suits your lifestyles, the RC church and other religions also have a right to argue their case.

I dont think the gay community ie catholics as well ,Arent trying to make the church change anything ,They are trying to meke the point .That the church is not In the position to be telling anyone what they want , considering the ongoing Paedo stuff at the church itself.Its very hypocritical.

#130

Argue the case all they want, just stop taking money from the government that made the laws they are refusing to abide by.

I reckon if they had kept quiet and carried on no gay couple would ever have went to them anyway and could have been steered to another agency, they are merely trying to flex some muscle and keep the exec doing their bidding.

On discrimination the Catholic church in Scotland is being hypocritical.

It portrays itself and those of it's faith as victims of discrimination in Scotland, accusing society in general as being innately sectarian.

At the same time it upholds it's right to discriminate against other sections of Scottish society, accusing such sections as being sinful.

Politicians should pay no heed to such a hypocritical stance, otherwise they too will be accused of being hypocritical.

#130 Well said

Going by the view of many in here the rights of a gay person should be achieved by forfeiting the rights of religious people.

Well said no. 108. I wouldn't go to an agency that judged my fitness to parent on the basis of my sexuality. And since when is someone's sexuality anyone else's business? Life is too short for the hatred that is going around - on ANY basis

Well I guess all this shows is, "there's some that loves tae hate" and there's others that "hate tae love"; then there's the rest of us who would rather see the poor bairns placed with a gay family that will look after them, than with the heterosexual parents who originally abandoned them.

133 Well said My points exactly .

People always use these imotive words like DISCRIMINATION to stifle the debate.

If an adoption agency believes than the best home for children is with a mother and father then that is aperfectly acceptable policy.... and in my opinion its a true one. A mum and dad family is best. Its also better than a single parent family.

Adoption agencies that follow this guideline should not be forced to make decisions that they dont think are best for the child.

We're always talking about the importance of choice.... it looks like this basic of choice is being taken away from people who are doing good work with children and they are being told you cant choose who you think is best for the child. This is a disgrace.

Is no one willing to stand up for family values anymore?

One cant be Hypocritical to another part of the community when it is Abusing children itself,

#140 I agree with you on this one,

How long will it be before they release orders to adoption agencies saying that so many children(however many that may be) should be adopted out to gay couples,

If that happens the best interest of the child will go right out the window

#141 As I said in a previous post.

There are many in here who continuously regress to slurring the church as a group of paedophiles.

I read an article that listed the occupations which have been found to contain the most paedophiles, and in fact priests and members of the church came in much further down the list with employees of child protection agencies much closer to the top.

I do not deny that there have been cases of child abuse within the church, (however nowhere near as many as some people think) but this has been commited by people who should never have became priests and have infultrated the church to benefit there own perversions.

Because of the negative propaganda we now have people like #7 frodo the scot and #24 Media 1 and yourself who will continue to rant, painting the whole church with the paedophile brush without any knowledgable basis for there reasoning.

The comments on this website could be considered proof that Sectarianism in Scotland is NOT caused by Catholic Schools or Celtic and Rangers. It would appear to be fomented by the Gay Community. Is there anyone they don't hate?They hate the Church, hate catholic education and probably Jews and Islam because they disapprove of homosexuality as well. There's Jack McConnels's answer. Set up meetings with all the homosexual lobbyists and groups. He could stamp out Sectarainism in a very short time. Totalitarianism is alive and thriving in Scotland. Where is all this so called Tolerance? Would the authorities force a black child to live with a white family? I think not ! Why then should a Catholic Adoption Agency or Church of England be forced to go against their conscience ? Gays now want to legislate for how people think or feel ? What next? No one allowed to condemn Paedophilia ? Rape ? Murder ? Agree with Gays or they will use the law to put people in jail because they are determinded to force this politically correct insanity on the whole population/

#144 Well said

The one size fits all mentality doesn't work!

143 You are walking about with blinkers on .Its not Church bashing ,The preists you talk of Were very well established in the church for decades,My own family stopped going in the late 80s ,gay people on this forum have came across Way above your intelect,Im bored now.

CHURCH = HATE

#144

"Why then should a Catholic Adoption Agency or Church of England be forced to go against their conscience ? "

If they take the lawmakers cash then surely they should abide by the law?

#148

Do Muslims have their own agencies, funded in the same way?

In answer to the person who said that other adoption agencies(social services ones), will place children, in line with the birth parents wishes.They do not.A relative's orphaned children were placed in a home which their parents, if alive ,would not have sanctioned,and which their paternal grandparents tried to stop by attempting to adopt them and bring them up.This is an area where the Catholic adoption agencies keep in line with birth parent and family wishes.

I think it was Roosevelt who said

"If one group of society do not have equal rights then none of us do"

Seems Catholic Church (and some but def not all) of it's supporters are happy to deny homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexuals.

No amount of trying to cover up their homophobia/hatred of homosexuals with red herrings will really cut it.

#147

You say they are above my intelect but you can't put together a rational argument so instead you insult me.

What gay opinions do you believe are above my intelect.

Why dont everyone live an let live, the Catholic Adoption Agency was created for those who wanted to provide their children with a particular lifestyle and upbringing. Let them get on with it therefore those who have another lifestyle can use another agency/organisation. What we are all forgeting that the child/children are the most important aspect of this discussion. All parents screw up at one point, my parents committed adultery my dad wasnt cast out into the wilderness by the church, however my mum was (both were equally to blame in the split), therefore hypocracy from the church and the reason why I left. There have been hetro and gay child abusers and you cant say that because someone is gay they are likely to abuse.

Someone entered that church=hate.What church does he mean?
The ones I am familiar with teach faith,hope and love and the greatest of these is love.
I feel very sad for him.....I will hope he finds what he is looking for without God.Peace to you my friend.

143 EM# says "I read an article that listed the occupations which have been found to contain the most paedophiles, and in fact priests and members of the church came in much further down the list with employees of child protection agencies much closer to the top."

Maybe so. But which organisation, proclaiming to hold the moral high ground exclusively as its own, has been proven not to have reported its paedophiles to the police, but instead to have participated in a massive cover-up by moving them around to hide the embarassment and thus let them reoffend time after time? And how many of the senior representatives of this organisation who did this have been charged with aiding and abetting these offenders? Remember this has been a carefully managed global cover-up over many decades where thousands of children have suffered. One of the worst of those who actively covered up priestly abusers, Cardinal Law in Boston, ended up with a comfy retirement in the Vatican and even said a mass at J-P II's funeral!

What happened to the 'conscience' of these bishops, archbishops and cardinals every time they moved a paedophile priest around? Conti said last year in the firemen's dispute over handing out H&S leaflets at gay pride parades that "conscience had sometimes to override duty". Aye, only when it suits the Church's agenda, evidently.

It's rich indeed that the Church accuses the rest of us of descending into a spiral of immorality!

#153

you said:
Seems Catholic Church (and some but def not all) of it's supporters are happy to deny homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexuals.

You need to ask yourself for what reason would a gay couple use a catholic adoption agency when they know that it does not agree with homosexuality

#157

These are people who should never have been priests, and yes this is horrendous.

The point I was making is that all priests should not be slurred as paedophiles because of the crimes of a minority

#156

Yeah whatever ...

Church seems to me to be somewhere weak minds go to make them feel better about themselves and the world they live in ... the church itself prays on the minds of those most in need of help and uses its influence to spread it's 'righteous moral message' - which is thinly disguised hate.

Fne - so you want to go to church and believe in 'god' - just don't expect EVERYONE to subscribe to your beliefs and certainly the chuch has no right to demand laws be changed for their benefit.

154 I havent insulted anyone,if you feel inferior Then thats your own mind.Im just stating my observations of your comments ,END

See no problem with gays adopting kids, but for male gays, girls only and for lesbians, boys only. Problem solved!

#161 You did say:

gay people on this forum have came across
Way above your intelect,

I also asked what opinions/gay people that was

How many times does this tawdry debate have to be run through? Christians - of any denomination - cannot honestly expect to be taken seriously as they pick and chose from among all the laws and rules in Leviticus and Numbers in order to shore up their bigotry - for that is what it is. If a single Christian can honestly say to me that they truly live by all the laws of the Old Testament then I will fully accept their right to impose this one on me. But they'd better read them closely first!!!

NB. Could any Christian find a place in the Bible where Christ takes time out to condemn same sex couples??

The focus here should be the welfare of the children.
Children will thrive in a safe, stable family environment. I have seen this in my own family where I have adopted siblings and have had many (35) fostered "brothers and sisters".
The family is ultimately a mother and a father (female and male) in a caring / loving relationship. It is preferable that they are married to each other (as a demonstration of long term committment and stability). Single parents are real "stars", coping with keeping themselves and their families together.
Marriage, family, was instututed by God, who made male and female human beings.
Adoption agencies work hard to place children with appropriate parents (it's a tough job). The Roman Catholic Church is being sigled out ..... they are not alone in their beliefs and have done tremendously well in placing children in an adoptive situation (200 last year). Where there are Religious beliefs to consider then it is essential that these are considered. Christianity, Islam and all the worlds major religions have clear stances on homosexuality. Why will some parts of society and politicians not include this in their considerations?
The beliefs of homosexuality are at odds with the laws of the major religions, the laws of nature and for the the beliefs of some homosexuals (currently) the laws of the Scotland, England and Wales and the laws of England and Wales as interpreted in Northern Ireland. The views / beliefs of the majority should not be ignored in favour of those of the minority. The politicians need to open their eyes and ears - and do the right thing.

I don't understand the conflict...they're not saying same-sex couples can't adopt, they're just saying that the Catholic Church doesn't have to allow them to adopt from their agencies. Are there not non-Catholic adoption resources in Scotland? Frankly, I think we in the U.S. would be glad to have Scotland's rules on gay couples adopting...you're not outlawing it outright like Bush & Co would so like to do.

#162

What a foolish comment

#165

Your "religion" does not govern this country - thankfully

#156

you said

... the church itself prays on the minds of those most in need of help

I think you meant to say PREYS

Although there is probably more truth in your mistake.

168 I agree .he doesnt know what hes bringing up!

#169

Face the facts .. you pray to something that is to many fiction and unproven.

You claim superiority and a right to condemn others.

You cannot be taken seriously - and certainly the government sees right through the church.

People may not be aware that Catholic adoption agencies have already placed children for adoption by gay people. It has been legal for a single gay person to adopt for many years, and Archbishop Nicholls on Newsnight last night confirmed that Catholic agencies have placed children with gay people in the past. So Catholic adoption agencies themselves have not expressed any issue with gay people as adoptive parents. This is worth repeating: it is not the Catholic agencies that have a problem here.

What is actually happening here is that the upper hierarchy of the church has realised that this is a route via which it can attempt to block the anti-discrimination laws which will stop it practicing discrimination against gay people in all goods and services. They don't appear to care that they adoption agencies they are claiming to be "protecting" demonstrably don't have a problem. They also don't appear to care that the same anti-discrimination laws protect religious people from discrimination in exactly the same way.

One note on #148 - sufficient couples are NOT available. Applications for adoption today are running at about a third of levels twenty years ago. More children are growing up in care than ever before. Increasing the pool of potential adopters is a key part of tackling this problem.

If we follow through the arguments presented in some posts above against faith/religion based services, or indeed single client category services , to the effect that they should not be funded by public money and closed then we end up with a scenario which would represent a comprehensive collapse of welfare provision in this country.Lets take two examples
~ the wide range of specialist health/counselling support for the gay persons
~the range of services for Muslim.Jewish and other faith which take account of their value base derived from their religion.
I pay taxes and I have no problem with the fact that
public money will be used to fund these services although I will not at any point use these services. They are usually funded by a mix of public money and some contribution from the community of the recipient group.The 120+ projects run by the Church of Scotland and the Archdocese of Glasgow in the social welfare field are funded on the same basis but the ethos of these projects reflects the spiritual basis of their approach to care and therapy-they are subsidised to a substantial degree by the respective church communities.Should they all be closed because of this latter characteristic ???-that is ather crude conclusion invited by a number of the pots above.A further question might be stated thus
If you, or a member of your family,needed to access welfare services and the church based service -as often is the case-was the best available would you ,on principle, refuse to consider an application??

#156 sorry that last post was meant for
JEFF at #160 in his answer to you

what the hell does it matter as long the the children get a save and loving home .just because the parents are gay does not mean the kids will turn out to be gay,if anything i think they will probably give a lot more education to the kids so the can understand better the way people are.in any cause is not the social services going to be popping in on visit throwout the years and act as a safety net.

164: I am a Christian. I live by all the laws and guidance that the Bible gives. It is the laws of the New Testament (the new covenent) that are applicable ultimetely. They are much more strict than the 10 Commandments (which still need to be applied and are not multiple choice). The laws of the OT particularly Leviticus are strict but correct, for the purposes of purity and were first applied for the people of Isreal / Jewish people. Christ himself condemns the Samaritan woman, met at the well, who has had several husbands and is now living with a man who is not her husband. This seems bad enough to him, homosexuality would surely have received a more severe comment. As a Jew he held with all Jewish law and God given practice (so his view of homosexuality should be clear). In the NT Paul makes God's view of homosexuality very clear, see Romans chapter 1.
Homsexuality and moral decay destroyed the Greek and Roman empires. Will the UK and Western Society be next? Now is the time for turning back to first principles, to the basis of all society and mankind - our origins in God and His guidance for our lives.

163 Gay peoples comments came across far more intellegent and of higher intelect than yours ,its an observation,get over it ,

#176

Lordy Lordy .... get your bible oot and head down the shopping mall ...

I have a spare sandwich board if you need it!

167.. Not half as stupid as yours at 160!

Feriens # 95

Your comment clearly indicates where you got your education. The fact that you spout venom from the Shankhill Road speaks volumes about you.

Dukie # 102

You made that extension, not me. There are good and bad people in every walk of life. You can see that the posts here are replete with venom and hate, not initiated by me, why do you choose to ignore all of them. Probably doesn't suit your agenda to criticise them, eh?
For every bad priest, there is one from your community too who is an abuser.

Kaffir # 115

Nobody said that gays shouldn't have a say in how their taxes are spent. They are very voluble on all subjects and are not an oppressed minority nowadays. If anything, their all pervasive influence is beginning to be oppressive.

BrendaMck # 109

Are you so insecure that very time you see the word "Catholic" you feel the need to criticise. The Catholic church will still be on the go when your Reich is dead and buried.
Free speech, I'm all for it.

Strict Ivan Jellicoe # 103

Exactly.

Jeff -"you claim superiority and thre right to condemn others "
Read your own posts and a wee bit of post Freudian psychology and you will be able to identify the concept "projection " with a wee bit of displacement ---do you kick the cat too ?//
What a fantastic case study you are !

So the church doesn't want vulnerable children to have to suffer the effects of society's homophobia against same sex parents?

Who's helping to create that homophobia?

Answer: the church!

All aspects of Scottish life should be secular without us having to put up with the intrusion of the effects of religious nonsense.

Scotland will continue to be a small-minded nation with a big mouth if it caves in to all these religious nuts.

How dare they blackmail the government with their pathetic threats. Who the HELL do they think they are!

If they really cared about orphaned kids they wouldn't be making these mealy-mouthed threats....

#159 Em. You miss the main point. Although a tiny minority of priests are paedophiles, the fact that the Catholic church covered it up cannot be as easily explained. The cover up was conducted by senior figures within the church, including the new pope.

Why would anyone listen to RC doctrine about family values etc, when the very same people put the reputation of their church, before the safety of children? Kids were raped, the church covered it up, end of story. The church has proven itself to be devoid of morality, it is rancid to the core and should therefore forfeit it's right to 'guide' anyone, including gay couples.

#171 JEFF

I do not claim superiority or right to condemn others, I have not condemned anyone.

I just don't think the right of a gay person should be worth more than the right of someone else.

The church is not trying to stop other agencies from adopting out children to gay couples, they are simply standing up for there right to adopt out children in accordance with there beliefs.

Gay rights activists would complain that there rights have been supressed and now that the law has changed here they are trying to supress the religious rights of other people.

If they don't agree with the church's standing on gay adoption then there is a majority of other agencies they can adopt from.

#176 A perfect example of what is so wrong with the church in the 21st century.

#184 Em, the church facilitates adoption of children from all backgrounds and beliefs. Why should the church have the right to operate under a Catholic set of rules? Why is being anti gay, good for a child?

#181 SAGE

You again eh - didn't you get thoroughly condemned in the last debate on this - you are homophobic and have made many offensive posts.

Going off into a fantasy off your own (i.e. your nonsense in 181) is highly amusing :-)

Do you not believe in equal rights for gays - including adoption?

This has nothing at all to do with the rights of children to have a safe, happy and stable upbringing. It has all to do with furthering the rights of one small but loud minority of society at the expense of another.

People are very quick to say Christian principles should not be forced onto others, whilst at the same time they are creating laws to force their principles onto Christians. You do not hear Atheists, Agnostics, Moslems, or any other group creating stupid headlines about this.

I just seems to me that anything concerning gays has to be pandered to, and if it is not, then all hell breaks loose. All other social groups have to shut up and toe their line. Yes of course they have rights, everyone has rights, but common sense should prevail, and I just do not see it this story at all.

BTW I have friends who are Christians(different denominations), Jews, Hindi, Moslem, Athiest, Gay, even Shinto. none of them are interested in forcing their beliefs on me, or each other. We enjoy each others differences, we do not condemn them.

#184

You still don't get it so you.

Replace the word GAY with BLACK or ASIAN.

Is it acceptable to refuse to 'adopt out' children to BLACKS or ASIANS?

#179

Only responding selectively, there was more than one pint in my post. Care to answer any others?

Interesting choice of rhetoric, reich!!!!!!

What faith aligned itself with the reich?

As a lapsed RC I find your inference that I am a member of any reich quite puzzling, is that your insecurity showing again?

EQUAL RIGHTS is exactly that EQUAL.

Sadly, the Catholic church has not evolved much and they are happy to wallow in their hate ... so it has taken government to do it for them.

I suspect they would still be burning witches etc if they thought they could get away with it.

If I left £1million in trust for a project for the support needs of heterosexual couples, and the government chipped in £1,000 for the project, would this be categorised as discrimination since gay persons would not be able to gain access to the service??
I think the full implications of recent equality legislation have to be examined very carefully -the practical working out of consequences will be a long term challenge

#188 well said

#148

You say "The only rights that matter here are the child's." Then you say " Let's watch the fuss when this law is forced on Muslim adoptions."

How does a child know whether it wants to be brought up in the religion of its birth mother? What does a child know, understand or even care about religion?

Would you agree the child has a right not to have its innocent head filled with competing superstition, myth and prejudice, especially when it is presented as fact but with no supporting evidence, and a right to make a decision about which deity, if any, it wants to worhip when it is an adult and can inform its own mind as to the why's and wherefor's?

and 176# You are advocating that we all submit to your god. There are other gods - how do we choose, and why is yours any better than anybody else's?

We don't need religion to raise children to be ethically sound adults.

I am convinced that those who oppose adoption by gay couples do so because they believe that homosexuals are inferior and not deserving of the same rights as themselves - otherwise why would they want to prevent gay couples from adopting children?

The bible is such a convenient excuse for them to hide their homophobia/hate.

179

that is a bit of a general statement?care to back it up with facts your reponse to 102?
or have you just invented a new stat??

195 Well said.

JEFF your arguments make no sense.

Since when did equal rights mean obliterating the rights of everyone else

Mr Hip

Or should that be Mr Minogue?

Thankfully,not all of us see a conspiracy by them big nasty Prods under every stone like you,so spare the world of your serial letter writing and campaigns..I suggest a week in Carstairs for someone as pathetically insecure as yourself.

Mind the demons at the bottom of the bed now.

I hear they're Proddies.

You Sir are a Grade 'A' nutcase.

@179

Care to comment on post 106 Kylie?

After taking thousands of years for civilisation to evolve from the cave era to the present day: are we now reaching the ultimate Armageddon?
There now exists the resources and technology on our planet to provide for every human being to live a happy life of self-fulfilment, free from want and hunger, yet, each day, we are still blighted by war, want and poverty.
Mother earth is a more dangerous place today than ever it has been before, with greed, evil, deceit and selfishness reigning supreme.
We have allowed ourselves to be governed by many unprincipled political control freaks, who thrive on fear, manipulation and deliberate lies. The problem off domination by fear begins when starting school from an early age. On the outset, the brain washing process begins when we are taught false view and myths about the world we are expected to survive in. Religion plays a leading role in this process as it was the original control machine, used to install fear to gain political control of the illiterate, then existing. Truth has become the rarest commodity within the political fraternity, whatever their claimed values.
The political *democracy* certain governments seem never tire in expounding, is totally false in context. What they mean in reality, is, *don't do as we do, just do as you are told, and shut up.*
Do otherwise, and we will soon shut you up, by foul or fair means! To retain their power and to enforce it globally, they will always be involved in undeclared wars, if necessary. Personal freedoms diminish every day in order to expand further government control. We are on the verge of losing our liberty under the various guises of fear which they firmly control. To enlarge this control, thousands upon thousands of innocent people must prematurely be put to death by the sword.
Their almost defenceless countries are reduced to
mere rubble, dust and smoking ruins, as the lust for dominance by those who claim to be their rescuers

195 Your comments are bang on ,You will get folks with tunnel vision ,Who just like to Live in a pretend world that everything is just hunky dorey,Like balamory,

This is not an exercise in religious bigotry, despite the attempts of many to make it so. What is really going on here is something that we managed successfully in our country over two centuries ago: separation of church and state. Not that we do everything right in America, but the separation of church and state has usually worked quite well, and has greatly contributed to religious and social tolerance.

Frankly, the Church of Rome has every right, in my opinion, to deny adoption to gay couples or individuals. It is a faith-based organization with its own moral regulations.

The stricture against homosexuality is identical among the Abrahamic religions, of which there are three: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That some adherents don't believe in the onus placed on homosexuality is their individual opinion, and not the doctrines of their respective religion.

The homosexual community has counter-attacked by branding everyone who disapproves of homosexuality as a "homophobe," which is just as bad as being branded a sinner, and semantically inaccurate as well.

HOWEVER: if the R.C. church in Scotland receives government money to assist their private adoption agencies, then the R.C. church is obligated to obey secular government rules-- or at least that's the way it's done in this country when money is involved either from state or federal government.

But, you can't inflict national rules on an organization which is trying to do good by its own moral precepts-- unless there is real and present physical or emotional danger to the children, at which point the secular authorities are obliged to step in.

Nobody puts a gun to the head of a homosexual and makes him try to adopt from either of the R.C. adoption agencies in Scotland. Surely there are more secular agencies around to provide children to couples who can prove they are capable of raising these unwanted little ones.

Whilst I personally do not agree with the notion of Gays adopting the law is the law . If I don't like the law I can vote at the next election for someone to change it .

The Roman Catholic church must learn that obedience of the law of the land is the prime consideration here, not its narrow sectional interest . And it is somewhat ironic that an organisation that has a track record of protecting paedophiles within its own ranks should get so upset about this issue anyway .

The Government cannot give in to this " freedom of conscience " argument ; otherwise it will be the thin end of the wedge and before long Muslim women will be getting stoned to death and the perpetrators will be claiming immunity because of their religious beliefs .

#144 - I see no evidence of hate in any of the posts in support of gay people not being denied rights and services or otherwise discriminated against. I have seen no evidence of hate in any of the comments made by gay spokespersons in the article. I have seen some nastiness, ignorance, bigotry, and discrimination in some posts towards gay people and I certainly see it coming from the position the church is taking.

Mr Intellect # 183

It is not just the Catholic Church that has covered up cases of child abuse. The former former president of the Methodist Church in Ireland pled guitly last week to abuse charges that had been suppressed for 40 years. The Scientologists have a database of 110,000 of their members who are abusers and do not notify local police. The truth about the Kincora boys home abuse scandal in Belfast was suppressed to because it implicated individuals precious to the Ulster establishment at that time, including some Loyalists.

The Episcopal Church in the US has the same proportion of child sex scandals as the Catholic - yet it allows its priests to be married and to have children. It is an abuse of power, but it has to be pointed out that over 50% of child abuse happens in the home and implicates one or both parents.

Time to see the big picture, Mr Intellect, your earlier support for RFC is noted!

204 very well said .

#198

They make perfect sense - you just wish to choose which laws you should have to obey.

Bottom line: we either ALL have the same rights - or we do not have them at all.

You want to deny gay couples the same rights you enjoy.

You ignore that part everytime instead choosing to focus on the denail of your right to be bigoted, homophobic and downright hateful.

The squabble over homosexual adoptions has nothing to do with Christianity, AT ALL.

Christ said: "If anyone harms one of these little ones, it is better that a millstone be placed around his [the perpetrator's] neck and he be drowned." Christ was referring to the then-widespread Roman practice of child abuse, and Judea was an occupied territory of the Romans in those days. Homosexuality was rampant in greco-roman times, and pedophilia was as well, with nothing to protect children from the assaults of adults, particularly if the children were born to slaves or were females.

Christianity teaches forgiveness and tolerance, replacing the lex talionis of the Old Testament-- Which in itself was a just law, because it insisted on punishments that were in keeping with the crime, rather than, say, the 19th century English practice of hanging people for stealing loaves of bread.

There is a great deal of ignorance in this forum about the real teachings of religion, equal to or perhaps greater than the ignorance of a group that would ban ALL people from adopting on the grounds that one homosexual is the same as another when it comes to parenting.

2000 YEARS OF CHURCH HOMOPHOBIA

PART 1

The Church of England marked the Millennium by celebrating 2,000 years of Christianity with a special National Millennium Service at St Paul’s Cathedral in January. Attended by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Queen and the Prime Minister, this service was shamelessly triumphalist.

For lesbians and gay men, however, the Christian Millennium is not a moment for celebration. It is a time to mourn two millennia of religious intolerance, which has inflicted terrible pain on homosexual people.
Over the last 2,000 years, church-inspired homophobia has led to hundreds of millions of queers world wide being rejected by their families, driven to depression and suicide, discriminated against by anti-gay laws, and condemned to death for sodomy.
Christian leaders have never expressed any remorse for the church's persecution of lesbian and gay people. When Pope John Paul II apologised in 1999 for centuries of Vatican-backed injustice and oppression – such as anti-Semitism and colonialism – he made no mention of Catholic support for murderous anti-homosexual witch-hunts.

His heartless omission was compounded this year when he attacked the World Pride 2000 gay festivities in Rome as an "offence to Christian values" and launched another embittered attack on the gay community, condemning homosexuality as "objectively disordered" and "contrary to natural law".
Here in Britain, the Archbishop of Canterbury's Millennium Sermon in January was an opportunity to atone for the genocide inflicted on us, but Dr Carey chose to ignore our suffering.
When asked by fellow Christians to express his remorse for the church's crimes against queer humanity, the Archbishop declined. Likewise, in response to OutRage!’s request for an apology to the lesbian and gay community, Dr Carey remained silent and indifferent.
How should we respond to such callousness? An eye for eye? But tha

2000 YEARS OF CHURCH HOMOPHOBIA

PART 2

In an atmosphere of on-going religious bigotry, it is difficult to show forgiveness – especially when church leaders express no sorrow or regret for the homophobic victimisation they and their predecessors have caused.
The lesbian and gay community must, nevertheless, rise above the low morality of organised Christianity. Stooping to the church’s lack of compassion would make us no better than them. Why not instead reverse the Christian fundamentalist mantra that is directed against queers? Loathe the sin of homophobia, but love the sinner and strive to deliver them from prejudice and discrimination.

However much we may deplore religious superstition and irrationality, it is surely better to win over to the struggle for homosexual emancipation as many Christians as possible. Better to have them as our friends and allies, rather than as our enemies and opponents.

Although redemption and forgiveness is the ethical response to church intolerance, it is a response that is understandably hard for many lesbians and gays to accept. More than any other institution in British society, Christianity has waged an almost ceaseless 2000-year-long war against homosexual people.

It is a war that still continues today. Last year, the Archbishop of Canterbury mobilised homophobes in the House of Lords to vote down an equal age of consent, thereby continuing the criminalisation of gay 16 and 17-year-olds.
Godly folk like Baroness Young and Cardinal Winning have scare-mongered and queer-baited non-stop all this year, in a desperate bid to save Section 28. They failed in Scotland, but succeeded in preventing repeal in England and Wales. The result? Discrimination rules. Homosexuality remains singled out for special legal restrictions that do not apply to apply to heterosexuality
Current religious homophobia has its roots in Biblical teaching. Leviticus 20:13 demands that homosexuals be put to death

2000 YEARS OF CHURCH HOMOPHOBIA

PART 3

We were stoned to death in antiquity, burned alive during the medieval era and, in Britain, hung from gallows until the mid-nineteenth century. This slaughter of homosexuals took place with the official blessing of successive Popes and Archbishops of Canterbury.
The murder of queers in the name of "God" is comparable to the Nazi extermination of Jews. Both Christianity and Nazism demonised, scapegoated and murdered minorities. Nazi anti-Semitism parallels Christian homophobia. The Bible is to gays what Mein Kampf is to Jews. It is the theory and practice of Homo Holocaust.
While the church no longer advocates the death penalty for gay lovers, it still preaches a gospel of sexual apartheid, arguing that homosexuality should not be accorded the same moral or legal status as heterosexuality.
This claim for the moral superiority of heterosexuality is analogous to the way the leaders of the Dutch Reformed Church defended white superiority during the apartheid era in South Africa. It echoes their theological justification of racial discrimination against black people.
The Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal Winning preach a similar doctrine of supremacism - straight supremacism - which they use to justify the treatment of queers as second class citizens. They provide moral respectability and legitimacy for the homophobic hate campaign of the Daily Mail. Their opposition to gay equality gives comfort and succour to queer-bashers everywhere. It coincides with the prejudice that inspired the Soho nail-bomber, David Copeland.

While they may disclaim it as their intention, these men of "God" encourage the homophobic attitudes that fuel violence against our community. Church leaders have queer blood on their hands.
Cardinal Winning, Dr Carey, and the leaders of most other Christian denominations continue to support discrimination against gay people with regard to the age o

2000 YEARS OF CHURCH HOMOPHOBIA

PART 4

Instead, these apostles of intolerance and unreason were invited to advise the government on the content of the school curriculum and on the wording of the recent Learning and Skills Bill covering sex education in schools. They were granted privileged access and influence that was not accorded to child welfare agencies, teacher’s unions or education experts.

OutRage! and the Gay & Lesbian Humanist Association have been often criticised by some people in the gay community for protesting against Church homophobia. Why bother? Christianity is an irrelevant minority sect, they argue. I wish!

The still unresolved battles over Section 28, the age of consent and sex education show that the Church continues to wield significant political influence to the detriment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Religious homophobia is still powerful. We ignore it at our peril.

END

Jeff: R.C. adoption agencies are private. If the government of Scotland were to forbid homosexual adoptions, that would be a different issue. But private adoption agencies do not have to offer children to everybody regardless of sexual preference or any other condition.

Since homosexuals aren't forced to go to Catholic adoption agencies in the first place, then what is the problem? What you want is for the R.C. church to bow to the secular government, which it is correct in not doing.

As I understand it, the government of Scotland had an agreement with the R.C. church re: adoption agencies that the church runs. This agreement is in danger of being breached by the secular authorities. So the Church's stand has more merit than you are willing to allow them.

#206 Where did I say that only the RC church are rancid to the core? Is this thread related to the RC church and it's moral stance?

Have I misread the article above?

You are using one disgrace to justify another.

Shame on you Sir.

Jeff: for goodness' sake, get your terms straight. There is not religious "homophobia" among Christians, Jews, or Muslims. Homosexuals are not something to be fearful of.

Instead, there is a moral stricture against it, based on Biblical passages. For example, "And God slew Onan, for he had done a detestable thing" [i.e., Onan spilled his seed on the ground.]

The fact is that the homosexual political agenda wields far more influence than the church, since they have the entire media on their side: movies, magazines, television, videos. The fact that you are uttering the term "homophobia" proves it.

#215 Martha

Flawed - flawed - flawed ..

If a private bus company chose to refuse black passengers on that bus - should the government allow that company to operate?

NO

Same applies to these Catholic Agencies who are practising the same hate ethics as those in the Deep South all those years ago.

Just because you think your hatred and bigotry is justifiable based on your bible it does not make it any more acceptable - well at least not to any sane thinking person!

WeeBerty: there is nothing democratic about the R.C. church and as far as I know, it never claimed to be democratic.

Churches are hierarchical institutions with God at the head and then descending orders of human clergy. The same is true in Judaism and Islam, to a lesser extent: but God and the doctrine is paramount. Nobody votes on the Ten Commandments. They are what they are, and followers of the Abrahamic religions are bound to follow them, because God said so.

In western Christian lands and in Israel, nobody makes you join a church or temple and follow the religious rules once you become adult. It's a personal choice when people live in secular democracies.

#215 The Catholic adoption agencies are financed by the taxpayer. To discriminate on religious grounds, where taxpayers money is concerned, is still discrimination, no?

If secular society adopted the same policy, i.e. they decided that RC/Jewish/Muslim etc families were unsuitable for adopting children, on the grounds that brainwashing and involuntary childhood indoctrination, were againt basic human rights, against the child protection act etc, would there be an outcry of religious discrimination?

Marta - you live your life based on a book of hatred - THE BIBLE.

I will live mine based on respect for my fellow humans - a TWO-WAY respect - which I demand and I give.

Anything less is not acceptable.

BrendaMck # 190

Rhetoric? Look up "polemic."

Most people lapse as Catholics when they become sexually active: something to do with contraception probably?

Feriens # 199

I think you are seeing double.
I suggest you at least attempt to refute the points made before resorting to the usual ad hominem fallacy.
I also defer to your superior knowledge of Carstairs; which ward do you favour?

176. SAW

You are a VERY scary person.

As well as believing that a bloke walked on water, came alive after dying and cured the blind, do you also believe in the tooth fairy?

You're not some David Koresh type perchance?

Jeff: transport companies that offer services to the PUBLIC must follow federal rules about non-discrimination. We thrashed that out in this country in the 1950s and 1960s. And yes, prejudice is appalling, and was.

Churches, however, are institutions that have moral doctrines. They run PRIVATE social relief agencies and can refuse anyone for that reason, PROVIDED that these agencies are not funded in any part by the secular government.

It is wrong for a secular government to try to coerce a religion that is following its own doctrine, PROVIDED THAT in so following, no physical or emotional harm is done to the children who are placed by these private agencies.

#209

Time and again you continue to assume my stance on this matter.

I will say it again.
My view is that there is a majority of other adoption agancies who will gladly adopt a child out to a gay couple.

So why do you believe that a minority of adoption agencies who adopt in adherence to their religious belief be forced to fly in the face of there teachings or else be unable to operate.

There is a wealth of other agencies who would be happy to do this.

Jeff: for example, in 20th century in this country, private adoption agencies run by churches tried to place babies according to their religious "birthright." In other words, if a child was born to a Catholic mother, that child would be given to a Catholic couple in adoption. The same applied for Protestant and Jewish children.

I think that this practice has been somewhat relaxed, but can't comment authoritatively on it.

#219 The christian churches are very well known for referring to homosexual people as an abomination. Please take the time to read and educate yourself on the prejudicies of your 'church'. There's nothing more annoying for an atheist like myself, to argue with, and have to educate, an ignorant believer, like yourself.

#215 You may have been misled about the situation. It was only last year that adoptions by gay couples were made legal. Up to that point, single people, whether straight or gay, were allowed to adopt, but the only couples allowed to adopt were married couples.

This legalisation had no effect on the RC adoption agencies because it didn't compel them to offer equal treatment to everyone, it just legalised fair treatment of unmarried couples.

The piece of legislation now under discussion is the anti-discrimination regulations which will make it illegal to discriminate against LGBT people when providing goods or services. What this means is that anyone providing an adoption service to the public, which is what the Catholic agencies do, will be compelled to be non-discriminatory between straight and gay people.

This is the same legislation which will stop a homophobic hotel owner, for example, from turning away a gay couple on the basis of their sexuality. It will become illegal to discriminate in this way.

The Scottish Executive had no agreement with the Catholic Church that it would be allowed to discriminate. Such an agreement is, in any case, not in the gift of the Scottish Executive. It simply cannot exist, and if it did, it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.

Hope that helps to clear some things up.

No. 215

Sorry but with respect you're talking total nonsense . Your statement that the " RC Church is right not to bow to the secular government " is to condone illegality .

Neither you, me, the RC church nor anyone else can pick and chose which laws they will or will not obey . And your reference to " secular government " - well as far as I'm concerned that is the ONLY government . I may not always agree with it but I recognise its authority and no amount of blinkered RC thinking is going to alter that .

If RC's will not obey the law they should be arrested, as should P's , Muslims or anyone else who wrongly thinks their " conscience " places them above the law - such a policy will lead to anarchy .

Em: you're absolutely correct. There are thousands of agencies, public and private, that are non-religious and who routinely place hundreds of thousands of children around the world with no reference to the religion of the child's parent, and with tolerance for all applicants.

So I repeat: WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

Far better if they turned their efforts to matters entirely within their control. Preists who steal from demented old ladies and the growing number of paedofile priests. Something about 'putting your own house in order'

#229 So you are happy for the RC church to operate a policy of anti gay discrimination, whilst receiving funding from taxpayers, including gay people?

228 Martha#

"It is wrong for a secular government to try to coerce a religion that is following its own doctrine"

But is it right to for a secular Government to fund a religion to follow practices that contradict the Government's own commitment to human rights and equality?

And what about the Koranic call for all homosexuals to be killed, an opinion voiced by a hate preacher on the Channel 4 Despatches programme last week? Gays do get executed in Islamic countries. Would you say then that it is wrong for a secular government to try to coerce a religion that is following its own doctrine, if that secular Government believed that such a practice was barbaric and constituted murder?

#235 The problem is acceptance of state sponsored discrimination. Do you think it is acceptable?

#234

YOU QUOTE/SAY: Em: you're absolutely correct. There are thousands of agencies, public and private, that are non-religious and who routinely place hundreds of thousands of children around the world with no reference to the religion of the child's parent, and with tolerance for all applicants.

So I repeat: WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

THE PROBLEM IS that your hatefilled Catholic Church and it's heads cannot behave in a civilised fashion with tolerance for all applicants.

CAN YOU NOT SEE YOUR GLARING INCONSISTENCY!!! - JEEESS!! (oops!)

#226

Whenever I began to lapse is irrelevant, though plenty of priests manage to be sexually active and never "lapse" and thanks for the pointers on grammar I am sure it will come in handy.

Any chance of answering the original point RE TH, I have friends from that area and they have never mentioned such a theory about him. A link or article from a paper would suffice. If you could also find your way to respond to the questions put to you in full it would come in handy, probably more so than the grammar lessons.

#238 Kaffir

Don't hold your breath for an answer to that one.

Check Mate.......

225 - Jeff - You display a fearful hatred towards the BIBLE and to the author of the Holy Scriptures - that being none other than The Almighty himself. It is to Him you must give an account - and basically I would not like to be in your shoes. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God". We are told in scripture "to humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God"..........................

#241 Brenda, my guess it that Jimmy TH gets his stats and facts, from Celtic supporters message boards.

Or at least, that's how it appears.....

#243 Your god is a deranged, bloodthirsty, lying lunatic.

He'll be angry with me too, but not half as angry as I am with him....

Please tell him the next time you 'have a chat'.

Thanks.

# 243

I always thought Diego Maradona was a good bloke .

nail on head Hitman 227

can you imagine if a wee teenage lassie came home today and told her boyfriend that she was pregnant and he knows he hasn't touched her??
"how do you know hen?" "an angel tellt me Joe"

drugs,drunk?? is it any wonder the RC church has declining members as has many religious institutions.
No sane person in 2007 would really believe that?

The problem isnt that same sex couples have the right to adopt and foster. The problem is these bairns' parents who brought them in to the world with out CONTRACEPTION cannot for some reason or another raise their own child(ren). The RCC teaches no contraception. I understand no to abortion, but no to a condom in this day and age no to a condom can be death, disease and unwanted pregancies. The church needs to step out of healthcare, and social services. Their message is irresponcible. Let religion stay in church.

1 st. There are only two Catholic agencies which do adoptions in Scotland. Scotland's social services are excellent.
One of these agencies only objection was that the bairns wid maybe encounter homophobia from the public. This is justified fear lets look at even how this church is acting.

2nd. Catholics are a minority in Scotland, why should their pulpit rule over the majority who are loosely christian.

3rd. If these folk can adopt Scottish bairns, give them nurturing and help them out of poverity, and NED culture. Then a real service is provided.

4th. Same sex couples are two groups male and female. The issues are distinct for either. Females can procreate, some do via a male partner or in vitro. Many women have no urge to procreate while many others do, society and rearing have to do with this. As well as personal choice. Gay men some have the urge to have their own biological child many dont. Some find a willing female draw up contracts etc and the serogate mother produces a child.

5th Fertile Heterosexual couples often take for granted the ability to bring children in the world. THe children didnt ask to be dragged in to this nor societies poverity, crime, drug and NED culture. These children are left almost parentless if not worse a lingering on dope addict of a mum. Some times,The best thing these types anti-social parents can do is offer their child(ren) up for adoption. Many heterosexual couples and same sex

Jeff in Dundee: How you can extrapolate from my words that I am a "homophobe" is beyond me. I presenting the case for the Church's refusing to accept applications from people who are openly gay to adopt children.

In my business, there are five openly gay employees, hired by me, based on their resumes and their apparent willingness to do the job excellently. I have gay friends. I don't say this by way of apology, I state it as fact.

You are typical of the bigoted left, which likes to think that anyone who doesn't think exactly as you do should be labeled with some derogatory label.

No church that does not receive taxpayer money should be forced to release children for adoption to parents who do not meet the church's standards. Do you honestly believe that Muslims, for example, would take a Muslim orphan and give it to a Christian or Jewish family? And should they be forced to do so? Well, if they are receiving taxpayer money to support them, they should be so forced-- but if not, then they can operate as they see fit.

You are just a modern version of the 1930s bigots around the world, who hated anyone and everyone who was not exactly like themselves, or who did not espouse the values that they proclaimed as supreme.

#237

It's not only gay people who pay tax

John 243#

If you are so beholden to 'scripture', why aren't you out there killing anyone you see picking up sticks on a Sunday? Scripture also says that adulterers must be put to death, and any woman found on her wedding night not to be a virgin stoned to death - you up for that too? Deuteronomy 22: 20-21 for that one

Scripture also tells you that we are all condemned at birth to be 'original sinners' because a talking snake persuaded a naked woman to eat an apple.

Do you get your scripture at the pick 'n' mix counter?

Jeezy peeps!

#249 please read 242. Discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of sexual orientation is being made illegal in this country. Those wishing to provide a service are already prevented by law from discriminating on the grounds of race, disability and religion. They will now be prevented from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

Kaffir: I have a number of issues with Islam, so you're preaching to the choir.

But let's restrict the argument to adoption agencies. I have said, repeatedly, that adoption agencies that are run by private groups-- e.g., churches-- that furthermore do NOT receive taxpayer money to assist them in their operations, should be able to operate according to their own principles, provided that no harm comes to the babies and children in their care.

IF however these agencies DO receive state money, then they have to open their doors to the public and seriously evaluate all who apply based ONLY on the applicant's ability to parent and to support the child to adulthood.

Is that clear now?

235 Martha
The problem is that any discrimination is illegal. The reason it is illegal is to ensure no one, or group's prejudice can be imposed on another. If the adoption service is not made available to gay people, it is illegal, and by definition, not acceptable. The catholic church, or any other dissenters, will have to give up providing the service or make their practice legal. So Martha, therin lies THE PROBLEM. Children have a right to be brought up in circumstances that are free from illegality and prejudice. Not a lot to ask really

Duncan in Edinburgh: If that is the law of the land, then the Church is obliged to follow it IF it is a law that does not do anyone moral, physical, or emotional harm.

It is difficult to prove that a gay couple or individual cannot provide for and raise a child successfully to adulthood purely on the basis of sexual orientation. I personally believe they should be given a chance to do so, if they desire. There is a problem with some confusion by the child when they see their two mommies or daddies kissing. I do not know how that would be handled, but there may be a way.

So many hetero people have babies that are unwanted and basically neglected, that in my own opinion, any couple of any sexual orientation who seriously want to commit to the obligations of parenthood should be permitted to do so.

249

in this country as far as I see it only one group operates a trully bigotted agenda.
They insist on separate schools,same schools but separate staff rooms,RC only positions and now want to remain outside the laws of the land???

anyone that challenges them is a bigot??
They are an outdated,declining faith and should be treated a such.

Human rights and equality for all ,of course only if the RC church agree or benefit

245 Mr Intellect
225 Jeff

What a pair......... certainly not good ambassadors for the wider homosexual community in light of their outright hatred shown against their CREATOR. The Lord Jesus Christ said to the believers during His ministry here on earth - "Because they hate me, they will also hate you". Think about it...........

#245 Mr Intellect...?

Earlier you said you were an atheist but now you say you are angry with God

What's it to be?

So we're all broadly agreed then - the Roman Catholic church is wrong .

Various churches at various times, and individuals who are members thereof, have stood against tyranny of all kinds throughout the ages.

There are people who truly believe that homosexuality is immoral and that homosexual couples cannot therefore raise a child in a wholesome home. These people have a right to speak without being labeled as homophobes or whatever other catchphrase is in vogue at the moment.

Let them present their case and argue for it in a civilized forum. Prejudice and bigotry cut two ways, although there are some on THIS forum who don't understand that.

Figgy, Ayrshire: and you treat your outdated, declining parents with the same disrespect?

Em 250#

"It's not only gay people who pay tax"

No, but then gay people don't get public money to run services that exclude christians on the grounds of irrational prejudice.

And no taxpayer has the right to demand that irrational prejudice should be written into law on the grounds that it is his or her "conscience"

There is a young African child aged 4 left in a dustbun to die because the parent was unprepared to look after her. Another child at 3 years old is in a critical condition because her mother throw her out of a 5 story window. Then there is the 6 month old African child who was flushed down the toilet and found in a sewage drain(remarkably still alive)

Yes folks this is South Africa in 2007. Now these children all need caring homes, the church cannot look after them and soon they will be orphaned. Just then a loving gay couple walk in and say that they will take the child to a comfortable home, provide all the love and affection the children requires, feed her, cloth her and educate her as their own..The Catholic church turns round and says NO!

Nice one lads!!

Maybe when the catholic church permit all their priests to marry, thus embracing family unity they can comment, until then they should sort their own house out...

No church that does not receive taxpayer money should be forced to release children for adoption to parents who do not meet the church's standards.

ABOLSUTE WRONG AND RUBBISH - PERHAPS IN YOUR LARGE BUT SMALL MINDED COUNTRY WHERE YOU ELECT IDIOTS LIKE BUSH IT MIGHT BE.

Do you honestly believe that Muslims, for example, would take a Muslim orphan and give it to a Christian or Jewish family?
WHY NOT? IS THAT NOT WHAT BEING AHUMAN BEING IS ALL ABOUT - UNTIL THE HATRED AND DIVISION OF RELIGION IS SET-ASIDE FOR A MORE TOLERANT AND RESPECTFUL SOCIETY THEN THEIR WILL ALWAYS BE WARS AND DIVISIONS. YOU ARE PROMOTING AND MAKING EXCUSES FOR SUCH INSTITUIONS.

You are just a modern version of the 1930s bigots around the world, who hated anyone and everyone who was not exactly like themselves, or who did not espouse the values that they proclaimed as supreme.

I THINK YOU ARE PROJECTING HERE - 90% OF MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY ARE STRAIGHT AND WE ALL GET ON JUST FINE - UNLIKE YOU THEY CAN DIFFERENIATE BETWEEN HATE AND LOVE - INEQUALIOTY AND EQUALITY.

Quote from Stonewall Scotland "Generally, our view would be that any exemptions from the goods and services legislation that this issue has come under would be discriminating against gay people"

Since when were children goods or services?

# 256

100% correct . It's supremely ironic that any criticism of the Roman Catholic church, possibly the most bigotted organisation in Scotland, is met with howls of " bigot " .

The R.C. church is wong IN OUR OPINION. They are not wrong in theirs regarding homosexuality.

This is a moral issue and churches deal with moral issues, based on Biblical precepts. Whether you believe the Bible is right or wrong has nothing to do with its inherent rightness or wrongness, just as stating "there is no God" has nothing to do with the fact of His existence, or nonexistence. Facts are facts. Things are true, or they are false.

You can say "I don't believe that black holes exist in space" and that has nothing to do with their existence. That they exist appears to be scientific fact.

It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of God, especially since the universe tends empirically to prove otherwise by the fact of its very being. Where did it come from? And why is it here? Why are we here? NOT how did we come to be here, but WHY?

That is the basis of religion, which some choose to relegate to ignorant superstition. But WHY? is a legitimate question, and it is the most difficult of all questions to answer, unless you want to cop out and say "there is no WHY" which is as stupid as denying the possibility of a Deity.

243. John

Are you 176. SAW's pal? Nutcases like you two would put anyone off religion for life.

#265 Adoption agencies offer a service. That is why they are subject to the new legislation which makes it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services.

Nobody is referring to children as goods or services! :-)

#258 Em, I said 'His god', which was the imaginary one I was referring to in this occassion. Now, deflection tactic refuted, let's move on, eh?

#267

The Klu-Klux-Klan think their opion is the correct one also.

Jeff, Dundee: sadly, you are making quite a spectacle of yourself with your ranting about Mr. Bush ("idiot") and my country ("large but small-minded").

That is not rational argument about a subject of general interest, and therefore from now on I will ignore you.

You clearly don't know enough about my country to comment on it, and as for Mr. Bush, he is not your President. I do not come on this forum and insult Mr. Blair, or Scotland.

Duncan: adoption agencies ARE services-- though not the children who are placed by them.

jeff
You make some really good points but the KKK reference is a tad OTT. : )

Mr Intellect # 244

You don't have to take my word for it. If you can then direct me to the Celtic supporters board where what I have stated is shown, failing that, get one of your neighbours kids to show you how to use Google. I would myself, but I don't do babytalk.
I have spelt the words out for you all you have to do is highlight, copy and paste. Or, don't bother it might dent your bigotry.

BrendaMck # 241

You will have to remind me what your original point was.

# 267

Total garbage . What's stupid about denying the possibility of a Deity ? What gives YOU the right to pronounce on the inherent rights and wrongs in the Bible ?

You sound like someone who's had the full brainwashing from an early age . However, you may care to note that the vast majority of Scotland's population are NOT Roman Catholics and are free-thinking enough to make up their own minds on issues of the day without gratuitous uninvited advice on family matters from celibates who regularly cover up for paedophiles or members of their deluded flock.

261

not disrespect but facts.
I have stated I am all for equality and humanity but the RC church seems to be against all this unless it is by their rules.
They are the ones who wish to go against the laws of the land or the morals of right minded people.
They are holding onto ideals from centuries ago which were nothing more than scare stories and dreams to feed their flock.
As for my parents,well I will never know-I was given up for adoption in the 60's and protected by an agency that did not discriminate on grounds of religion,although to be fair neither were gays offered a voice.
Thankfully at least the majority of the modern world wishes to move on.
You see I really could be termed a bassa

Martha. I see the sense in your arguement but I still think it is flawed. It matters not that this is, or is not a matter of conscience. Discrimination in the provision of services is illegal. No exemptions are allowed or the abyss of relativism is just waiting to swallow it all up.

This is indeed a difficult question. There are many people who feel that homosexuals ought not to adopt children, but who are not brave enough to say so for fear of being attacked by the "you're a homophobe" contingent.

As for churches, their province is morality. Sometimes it runs amok, as we see within the world of Islam today. Sometimes it clashes with secular philosophy and opinion, and law.

The questions ought to be:
1. Is this couple really capable of supporting and raising a child to adulthood?
2. Can they provide a stable, loving, nurturing environment to the child for two decades to come?
3.And will their sexual preference harm this child in any conceivable way?

If the answer appears to be "yes" to the first two question, and "no" to the third, then a child ought to be given to them. If the R.C. church in Scotland is so opposed to the present law (if indeed such a law exists) about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation being illegal, then it will have to cease its adoption operations in Scotland.

BUT: Catholic parents in Scotland can adopt children through Catholic agencies in other countries, presumably.

Mark j # 248

How does "loosely christian" work? Is that like being basically honest, or a wee bit iffy, a little bit gay? You are obviously someone who likes an "A la carte" religion, disgard the inconvenient bits, eh?

Mr Intellect # 245

Sneering comes easy to people like you.

Nodrog, if that is the law, then it is a good law-- provided that the child's welfare is always paramount.

Martha

"It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of God"

It is also impossible to prove existence. But prove it you must, otherwise if you challenge me to disprove it, you are asking me to disprove something that hasn't been proved.

Incidentally there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. You can't prove they're not there. That means you should respect my belief and not be ' fairyphobic', and you must not stop me doing what the fairies tell me to do, because if they tell me, I must do it out of "conscience".

279 martha

The law does exist and the church will have to change or stop providing adoption services.

This discussion is ludicrous. I am sick of "faith" organisations like the RC Church being given a free ride where the rest of us have to adhere to the laws and moral expectations of society. Why do we have to "respect" their sensibilities? Their doctrines are frequently immoral and thoroughly worthy of disdain, not respect.

It is as though I were to demand exemption from decent standards of behaviour because I belonged to an organisation that worshipped the Tooth Fairy and our consciences insisted that dentists be prohibited from dealing with children. How would anyone react to that, I wonder? Would people laugh? Or let us "opt out"?

Superstitious belief is optional; laws and civil behaviour are not.

#109 jth.

Still waiting.

I agree with you Martha. The childs Welfare IS paramount here and the principle is enshrined in law. The Children ( Scotland) Act 1995. It draws directly from the UN Convention on the Rigts of the Child

#284 Whoa there. The introduction of the regulations governing this is precisely what this whole debate is about. They haven't become law yet, becase late last year Kelly delayed their introduction claiming a high number of consultation responses. The publication of these regulations is expected very soon, and that is why the RC church hierarchy is trying as hard as it can to get an exception made in the law just for them.

So don't rest easy thinking this battle has been won. That is precisely the battle we are now fighting. And the bishops have by far the best PR machine, and the ear of both Kelly and Blair.

Same sex couples should run their own adoption agencies for their unwanted or ill concieved offspring
and let the church look after its own

Wny not ask the Church of Scotland (CoS) and the Free Church of Scotland (FCoS) what their attitude is in this matter. The Church of England has come out in support of the Catholic Church.
No Church will take orders from any government on a matter of conscience; so get ready to criticise the CoS and the FCoS.

#285 duns scotus

You are absolutely spot on!

As I said in #263..The RCC would rather see a child rotting away in an orphanage than in a caring and loving same sex household. They really are the most dispicable organisation in the history of mankind.

181 -Jeff you can add denial to your pathological cocktail and, when I view your profuse postings and your need to shock I suddenly realised that you do not care one bit about gay rights and the honest dialogue which discussion about them should entail...no you just crave attention ..it is becoming quite clear that is all you are about.For therapeutic reasons I will ignore you forthwith-you should not receive too many" strokes" (transactional analysis term -in case you miunderstand me !)otherwise your acting out will be reinforced and you might dissolve in squashyexplosion of self pre occupation-the other night you kept sending responses to yourself -answering your own questions ...were doing the Dorian Gray thing again??/

So it now seems that the will of the Scottish Parliament that passed the law is to be over-ridden by the English Westminster minister controlled by the vatican. An interesting constitutional situation. The Scottish parliament is thus shown to be utterly powerless when it has any conflict with Westminster ministers. Discrimination will be written into the law courtesy of the Opus Dei controlled Labour minster Ruth Kelly.

No religious official whether a member of achristian sect(catholic, protestant, orthodox), muslim(shia, sufi, sunni), hindu, scientologist, voodoo supporter, etc. should be allowed to get exceptions to the for their particular belief system. All people must be dealt with equally before the law. Else we will have to allow many peculiar beliefs as exceptions to the laws of the land as passed by our elected representatives, as they might offend the belief systems of these religious people. Must we allow muslim women to be treated as the Koran says in Scotland just because our laws are offensive to Islamic beliefs?

The key question is, can we allow the will of the people as expressed through our elected representatives to be pushed aside as it offended certain sects? And pushed aside by Westminster!

290 I am confident there can be no exemptions or the game is a bogie for anti discrimination. My understanding is that ALL discrimination is illegal.

BrendaMck # 286

Don't you know who Thomas Hamilton was?
I refer you to # 292 also.

# 292

Do they they take public funding to run their own agencies?

# 300

Well aware of who he was, not heard one single person say he was what you said earlier, do you have evidence to back up your claim?

And as said ealier answer all the questions put to you, it helps stengthen your position if you have evidence and are not selective as to which questions you wish to answer.

Media 1 # 294

You are a white guy lording it in South Africa and you call other people despicable.

WeeBerty # 297

When was the last time a priest was convicted in Scotland for the crime you describe? Plenty of other Scots have been convicted in the meantime though for abusing children; some near you.

#299 At this moment, discrimination against LGBT people in the provision of goods and services is completely legal. Only once the new regulations are brought into force will it become illegal. The RC bishops' attempts to amend the regs before they become law are what this whole story is about.

You are, of course, absolutely right that if one exception is made, the whole house of cards falls down. In my view that is precisely what the churchmen want. This is a political ploy.

SERIOUS QUESTION NOT A WIND UP!

If Jesus and his 12 male friends had walked into an adoption clinic, would they qualify as worthy parents?

BrendaMck # 304

There is plenty of evidence that Hamilton was a nonce, if you look for it.

MARTHA

Clearly I do having lived in Boston for 4 years
Just because you do not like what I am saying - it does not classify it as a rant

Bush is an ("idiot") and a mass murderer to boot!

Your country contains the most hate groups of any region of the world.

Youmay choose to ignore me - that is your perogative but please do not justify your inability to argue a point based on your inability to do so!

p.s. Mr. Blair is a murderer, a crook and hopefully soon (the police are snapping at his heels already) he will end up in court and then jail.

The USA has some great people their, very welcoming etc, smart etc, BUT it also has a large number of extremists of a religous nature.

"Get your gun Ralph - we is going to shoot some city-type queers!"

306
If the exemption is made it will be only a matter of time before there is a challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights. This is the strongest protection LGBT people have. Unless they scrap the Human Rights Act.
I do not think the churchmen will get their way on this one. The house of cards you decribe is where the politicians live and they will not allow it to happen. Self-preservation rather than doing the right thing may be the motivating factor

257. John

Can you PROVE he was their creator? Let's hear it....

Or did you just read it in an ancient book that is a collection of far-fetched stories, often contradictory and riddled with the supernatural?

When's yon Jesus bloke gonna make a reappearance? He's taking his time isn't he? Will he do that walking on water and curing the blind stuff?

If I told you I believed in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe you'd (rightly) tell me I was a nutter....

"Is it not enough that the garden is beautiful without putting fairy's at the bottom of it?"

As you like to say......think about it..

309
Out of respect for those children who died please do no not give that reptile any noteriety by mentioning his name. Let him just cease to exist.

292

Does CofS and CofE run adoption agencies in Scotland,RCC has only two?

Personal faith do not come into it. Loosely christian, also post christian. Europeans survived christian fascist regimes and moved on closer to Christs messages of loving eachother and sharing in our society. Corruption of our ecclesiatic heirarchy aristocracy and dictators diluted the goodness and brought in hate greed and material wealth in to the churches. The reformation brought more of the same national churches.

It is irresponcible in todays' society to not allow condom use.

The church chose to enter into the service of adoptions,it can act in its conscience and nolonger serve the community in this way. And continue to teach adstinance ie. no condoms=disease,death, and unwanted pregancies.

The church lost its' moral highground with scandals, and when it became material empire rather than fishermen of souls they became rich. Sell off everything, give to the poor, and follow me. Love they neighbour.. Even churches do not follow these words and pick and choose what is economically and politically expediatant to their own will while they cover attrocities. Why should folk follow dogma rather than Christs own words?

The hierachy is wrong. The faithful believe. Nonetheless, Europeans are a post christian society.

314. Wee Berty

Perhaps Jimmy the Hip would like to explain to us all the discovery of 153 children's bodies found in a mass grave in the grounds of a "Magdaline Laundry" run by those loving nuns in Dublin?

The Church is not discreminating, its taking a stand for the believes we uphold , the ones that want to discriminate are the one that want to impose to the church their acts, thats there personal life and they don't need to involve no one else in it. We Christians love them, the acts is what we don't love or approve.

I trust this nonesense will be shown the door...

No discrimination. Full stop.

Allowing the church to discriminate just opens the floodgates. What's next? Race discrimination for those who want it (extreme right wing parties for instance)? Sex discrimination for 'old boys clubs'.

It's a joke this is even up for debate.

To impose the gay will on the church is discremanating to the believes of the christians doctrine we stand for. Christians love every one, actions is what we don't approve.

I guess the truth is unsutible for you all

so once again,the Catholic Church thinks that it's above the law? Let the law prevail and let the Church close down as per their threat. Perhaps then the babies will not be brainwashed from infancy into a totally discredited amoral fantasy world of pseudo-cannibalism, guilt and highly selective scriptural verbage. It's about time these Christian zealots from across the spectrum were outed for the emotional damage that have wreaked on weak minds over the centuries, and the lenient tax treatment they receive at the taxpayers' expense is revoked for ever.

#295

Oh dear - another homophobe who (if you check his posting elsewhere on related topics here at The Scotsman for proof) because he is challenged on the contents of his posts on almost every occasion.

Poor old sage then indulges in some self-amusement and delusionary posting regarding myself. Funny who a slew of other osters saw right through you as well ;-)

315 Hitman

Let's hear it .....you say. You will find the creation account of man in ...

Genesis chapter 2 verse 7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostril the breath of life; and man became a living soul".

Now at last you know your origin.

A number of the posts above are very dismissive of any form of belief in a "higher power":as a consequence values associated with a belief system are rejected as having no relevance in the growth and development of children.It would aid the establishment of a more rational discussion about faith based adoption services if any of the posters in this category(ie those dsimissive of Christianity )could spell out with pellucid clarity their basic frames of reference in relation to the spiritual development of children.Do they agree that children have spiritual awareness as part of their personhood.??The extent to which belief is dismissed as of no relevance with such certainty by them would surely suggest that they would have no difficulty in responding. Duncans posts are -to my mind- very accurate in tracing out some of the legal aspects of this situation -the next big question is to spell out differences between believing and not believing and how this affects how you bring up children

All agencies have a right to decide what makes a 'suitable' parent. Faith based agencies have a right to decide that a homosexual couple may not be 'suitable'. If they tried to impose that on a public agency then I see that as a problem. That's the principle anyway.

That being said...I'm not sure that I like the way the Catholic church is behaving all sanctimonius though. Their priests (supposed pillars of the community and something to aspire towards) are famous for taking advantage of children...whereas a homosexual couple comprises of two consenting adults who are capable of making their own choices.

WeeBerty # 310

How many child abusers remain uncaught in Scotland is the question you should be asking. That is if you are interested in making any points other than narow sectarian ones.
There is an estimate that there are up to 200,000 undetected child abusers in Scotland. Someone near you right now.

324 - Jeff -we are now in therapeutic mode -be brave ...attention is too intoxicating for you

The GOD dude, you know the guy who sat on his arse for 6.5 billion years prior to deciding to make man is quite a guy.

He says, here is 10 things that I do not want you to do. If you do any of them I will send you to a fiery pit in the ground named hell where you will burn for eternity..

But he loves you really! lmfao

He also murdered first born Egyptian babies and sent locusts to eat crops in an ancient version of mass genocide..

And now we have an organisation who not only uphold this meglomaniacs ideals but were also responsible for murdering people who questioned their authority. This same organisation have persecuted woman for 2000 years and to this day they still frown on marriage.

Yet here they are dispensing advice on homosexual adoption..

Would Jesus and his 12 very very very close man friends be able to adopt?

Hitman #315

You tell me what level of proof you want?
You asked to hear it. Not all proof can be heard.
What level of proof do you want?

If you believed in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe I WOULD NOT say that you were a nutter. That book has biblical allegory and was written by CS Lewis, an Oxford and Cambridge professor – and a committed Chritian!
If you believed in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe I might probably say that you were a committed Christian – but that would be judgemental of me!
Is that the best you can do Hitman?
As I said 200 years of sustained attach – you’ve got nae chance!

Hitman # 318

You explain it.

Hitman # 318

I just know you want to up the tempo here to fever pitch, but the bodies discovered were those of 133 women. There is no indication of foul play, but it wouldn't suit your agenda to point that out.

#329 SAGE

You only know one mode - "bollocks" mode!

Hitman #381
This discovery made all the papers did it?
Reported worldwide by the BBC and CNN?
Was it in Merry Mac's fun page in the Sunday Post?
Was it reported by the same guy who proclaimed that Hitlers Diaries were genuine?

John 325#

"Genesis chapter 2 verse 7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostril the breath of life; and man became a living soul".

Some christians can't believe in evolution and the big bang, for which there is ample proof, but they do believe instantly in Genesis??

Genesis is a myth, man. And a bad one - there are two accounts of how god created us. Read it carefully. And Genesis also says god created "two lights", one to rule the day and one the night. Any fule kno that there is only one light, and that light from that merely reflects of the other object.

Do you also believe that stuff about the talking snake? Do you think we should teach our kids in science classes that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that man lived alongside the dinosaurs?

Incidentally, you might tell me why and at what point god made the dinosaur fossils?

2000 years if sustained attack and Hitman decides to have a go!

325. John

Ha ha ha ha !!! You're such a card. I asked you to PROVE it you silly man!

Children's nursery rhymes page 26:

"Jack and Jill went over the hill, to fetch a pale of water"

Naw honest, they did, it says it in the book.

Now at least you I know you're mentally unstable.

Hello Kaffir #336!
You and I have been down this road before!
If there's ample proof for a big bang and evolution - then there's the same ample proof for a God.
How many books are you reading cover to cover to 'disprove' God this time?
Don't quite get the connection with the Catholic Church refusing to adopt out to gays!

Yes, I can prove it.
What level of proof will you accept?

game set and match methinks,
Jimmy the hip
is it any wonder fe priests get charged when the RC church try to alter all the laws that they dis agree with and the sunday mail also exposed cardinal o brian as covering up for the paedo priests.
Why was he not brought to justice.?
Be careful JTH-there is a peado priest somewhere near you.

#341

Your last post is so warped and insane it's really hard to think where ro start picking it apart.

Actual - it is so funny - who you conclude that all couples are not equal - the jewellers analogy is a howler!!!

Give me your doctor's number and Ill see if I get get your next prescription to be adjusted - something def. ain't right with you!

once upon a time in the land of jam,jute and journalists there was a lad who wanted a hero to emulate >he searched high and he searched low -in this fair land and yonder in far Americay. Forsooth his search was frantic ,his search brought much pain for him because he was no alchemist just a simple seeker.
.After many years of wandering he at last saw the great One on the box of the moving pictures he saw the hero -he who challenges the black suited cleric even the highest of them all in the palace in which the highest ones live .He was Peter T. -the challenger -the cynic ..the rude one who made them jump as he climbed onto pulpits.The wanderer said " I will be like him..I will copy his words -such wise words about the two millenia and even call them my own.Peter T smiled he had another convert .

I think gays adopting children is unnatural and could be hurtful to those children. I was laughed at for having specs and called 'four eyes' at school and wonder what these children would be called.
I also think there are Many people who would deny me my opinion in this so-called 'free speech' Democracy.
I await your abuse.

Figgy # 342

There's a Loyalist terrorist killer near you. I wonder how that rates on your scale of twisted morality?

# 311 Call them what they are Jeff "Red Necks"
"Get your gun Ralph - we is going to shoot some city-type queers!"
All the arguing in the world will matter not one iota, pass the law. No middle class group of Christians on a adoption committee will grant adoption to a gay couple, not a cats chance. The child would be victimized by this bigoted society.

Strict Ivan Jellicoe: Here is the thing dude.

Firstly, your so called old testament god has to be the single biggest murderous,barbaric,meglomaniac,sadistic,mysogynistic monster in all of fiction!

Secondly: I say God as we are taught does not exist due to the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that he does. Therefore, until such times as he shows himself he is no more authentic than Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or Wee Willie Winkie...

I say that those who are spreading the word of god are evil..That is my opinion!

At the centre of your man made religion is a couple of lrules which you call sacred. You cannot question those rules, but why not? Because you cant. But why? Because you just cant.

If I tell that a celestial tea pot is oriting the Earth in an elyptical orbit you would rightly think I was mad..If I then harped on and on about it you would eventually want to take a look to see what I was talking about..But just as you decide to take a look I say that not even the most powerful telescope will ever see it, you just have to believe me it is there. You would rightly have me taken away by the men in white coats..But if some people continue my story and eventually it gets a voice lasting well over 2000 years and then it is taught to children from birth and all the way throw their school careers, then it may just grow some legs..

333. Jimmy

"I just know you want to up the tempo here to fever pitch, but the bodies discovered were those of 133 women. There is no indication of foul play, but it wouldn't suit your agenda to point that out."

I knew it was only a matter of time before your were caught out. You're lying.

1.Girls of 13, 14 and 15 are NOT adults. Or are they adults in your eyes? Have you got something to tell us?

2. 22 of the bodies had no death certificates pertaining to them. I suppose by coincidence they just happened to be buried there eh?

3. Read "Kathy's Story" by Kathy O'Beirne. You know, the girl who was raped by priests and penetrated by nuns? Or is she just a sick anti Roam Catholic looking to cause trouble?

You really should be ashamed of yourself trying to cover up like that. I think you'll find Ms O'Beirne refers to the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland as "the Taliban before the Taliban was invented".

Mass graves indeed.

334 subject showing agro again -output beginning to be restricted-some insight may be nurtured -needs affirmation

260....Martha, should the same people be allowed to adopt a child who may turn out to be homosexual, given that they will be bringing the child up to hold the same values? What about this possibility and the damage that it could do. Should gay children be able to 'divorce' their religious or homophobic parents and sue for damages due to their having been placed in an intolerant and oppressive environment? Should we allow people who do not accept homosexuality to adopt at all when there is every chance a child could be homosexual?

i think it is against god to bring in this legislation and cause anyone who is against it as the enemy its about time this self indulgent society relise that the church cares about children but not allow these vunrebal children to be influnenced by a society which seems to care more about legislation than morals

312...."pathetic pooofs"......yes that is very Christian...same old same old eh....bloody hypocrite!

349 - Kathy O'Beirne - The Guardian's (no friend of religion) article

But this week the book attracted charges of fraud, when five of her eight siblings apologised to her readers, saying large chunks of the book were fantasy.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,1879314,00.html

Kaffir # 353

Where is the standard rock kept that attests to the age of the Earth?

http://www.gaychurch.org/

- they even allow poor people like sage to attend!

326 - The secular fundamentalists are certainly making their points, which they are entitled to of course.

356.....I would not discount that book just yet....the jury is still out.

#341 You are of course absolutely right that no-one has the "right" to adopt. What everyone does have the right to is fair treatment. Don't be fooled into thinking, as a result of hearing what the bishops have to say, that Catholic adoption agencies go around turning people down because they are gay. All adoption agencies already have to comply with rafts and rafts of standards for potential adoptive parents. It is a highly regulated field, and Catholic agencies are subject to exactly the same regulations as all others.

All this new legislation will do will be to ensure that the same qualifications and safeguards and rules and decisions apply to people regardless of their sexuality. Individuals and couples will still have to be rigorously checked and vetted, and many gay people and many straight people will be turned down, just as they are today.

The point is that there are rational reasons for people to be turned down: risks to the children's health, conditions of the home, ability to cope with the trial period, and so on and so on. All the new law says is that you must apply these rational reasons to everyone. You cannot turn someone down because you don't like what they do in bed.

I don't think there's anything there for anyone to be worried about. And that is why adoption agencies the length of the country are welcoming this change.

Is this another aspect of the animosity against the Catholic Church?

I am not surprised that no one has yet set up the cry to prevent children falling into the hands of the unworthy.

Who is going to disagree with being extra cautious in protecting the very young?

Well done Church for standing up for the principle as well as the practice of mother and fatherhood. All Christians, Jews and Muslims do need to support you!

#365 Buckfast: you say "Well done Church for standing up for the principle as well as the practice of mother and fatherhood" LMFAO hahahaha

If we left it to RCC there would be no families remaining on Earth due to their hatred of woman...You know, no sex, no marriage bla bla bla archaic rules...

211* 2000 thousand years church Homophobia
is this were it started jeff? what about 2000 before
the church?

An amusing article by an American atheist.......
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

So I'm really fed up with the history of religious fundamentalism. But we now have another type of fundamentalism that is really pissing me off. My friend Cindy calls it secular fundamentalism and she has threatened to do a guest post on it. In the meantime, I'm giving it a shot.

I'm an atheist. It's my belief. That's it. I don't run around telling the rest of the world they should be atheists. What I believe is my business and what someone else believes is his or her business. I don't try to ram my beliefs down anyone else's throat and I don't want anyone trying to ram his or her beliefs down my throat. So I'll roast in hell. That's my problem. Don't try to save me.

I am not offended by Christmas nativity scenes. Likewise, I am not offended by menorahs. And I'm not offended by the Ten Commandments. But I am offended by the asshole secular fundamentalists who are trying to erase all traces of religion from our society.

The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

That means that we will not have a state religion or have any religion forced on us. It doesn't mean that we will totally erase God from this country.

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Just because I do not believe in God doesn't mean I cannot respect the religious princples that this country was founded upon.

We recently had an asshole raise a big stink about the words under God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Here we had a dickhead with entirely too much time on his hands. I love what Maddox had to say about him. Once again, as an atheist, I have no problem with the Pledge of Allegiance.

I think children should be exposed to religion. It provides a good basis of morality. I was raised a Roman Catholic. My father was an atheist and we h

# 366 Have I not seen you walking down St Stephens Street, Stockarro boy.

I believe that religions and those who follow the religion have a right translate their opinions into direct action as long as that action is not injurious to others. Since the Catholic Church believes gay people are inherently disordered then of course the church must discriminate against gay families. Nor would the church want to place a child with a gay family.

Nonetheless, those who do not believe as Catholics believe can refuse to be held hostage by Catholic beliefs. If the Roman Catholic church prefers to close down their adoption services rather than comply with a law requiring equal treatment of gay couples, then they have that right.

This may be a case in which state services do a better job for children that religious based services.

Is this not a case of potical correctness going too far?

How many cases are there actually involving homosexual parnerships seeking adoption through a Catholic agency each year? Politicians need to find our, as I think we should be told first.

I do believe most strongly in the principles of the sanctity of life and the need to place children, born unwanted especially, to good caring homes.

If the catholics have this principle who are we to object?

Let Homosexual partners therefore refrain from verbal catholic bashing and seek their wee bairns adoptees from other more accommodating agencies.

366

The myth of Catholic misogyny is well addressed in terms of the practical care the Church offers to women (and men) throughout the world. Has any institution educated more women? Fed more women? Clothed more women? Rescued more female infants from death? Offered more assistance or medical care to mothers and their born and unborn children? Members of the Church have undoubtedly behaved badly, but no less have members of the Church undoubtedly behaved well, heroically well. When they have done so, they have been even more fully incorporated into the mystical body of Christ whose Head came to serve all, love all, and save all, and in whose image—as God—he created both male and female.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603fea4.asp

#64, I agree with you, what about the children. The bottom line here should be that these kids are placed in homes with loving and functional adults. All to often kids in care end up with the same type of "adopted parents" that they were originally taken from.

Religion and Politics don't have a place with this issue.

Ive been homo all my adult life. Hetero friends r often scathing about the contempt & hatred we experience from these self proclaimed bigot types. Here is evidence that the venom is still out there. We know u hate us! May your God forgive you. At times in my life when Ive needed the support of a spiritual community, the courage to keep an open and loving heart, and to live with joy.. you disowned me. told me I was possessed, perverted, unnatural.. I found God among the meek and poor.. have acceptance and trust with all of us other outasts who are not perfect enuf for you. Love & forgive X

Lumber Jack from Fife:),

I agree with you 100 %

No wonder the church has lost so many followers and continues to flounder - it's the hypocritical and downright hateful manner that so many of it's so-called Christian flock behave yet profess to hold some skewed moral high ground.

Claims to be looking out for the interests of children and society at large look increasingly unlikely as their hate for gays comes to the fore.

Never mind - nobody is paying THAT much attention to them really and here is the Labour leadership candidate pledging his support for gay adoption

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-3555.html

Dear Jeff,
I invite you to visit the St Margarets Adoption Society and perhaps you may see a new side to things.
I also invite you to visit the local church and speak to the parishioners.None of them are "weak minded" nor "blinded by homophobia nor hatred of their fellowman".IF you believe we think that way.....I am afraid you have got that wrong.
I am an old codger now and in all my years, I have never heard of the sort of views you seem to think are prevalent among Scots Catholics....those who care for the sick,the lonely,the homeless.

I hope you can set aside your rather one-sided view of Catholicism and see what the reality is.
If you have worries....you know who to trust.When did an MP or MSP lay his life down for you Jeff?

#JTH 305

"WeeBerty # 297

When was the last time a priest was convicted in Scotland for the crime you describe? Plenty of other Scots have been convicted in the meantime though for abusing children; some near you."

The Vatican has protected their kiddy fiddling priests by moving them around the minute the first complaint was heard to protect the Vatican, as I have said before the rights of children to not appear on their radar, there is plenty evidence of that in the public domain.
"Many dioceses had found it expedient in the past to pay off the victims and their families with hush money. Generally, a confidentiality agreement was a standard part of these settlements. 3 Perhaps because of the church's tradition of forgiveness and perhaps out of an unrealistic belief in the effectiveness of therapy, the dioceses often routed abusive priests through residential treatment centres, and then reassigned them to another parish. Unfortunately, this often resulted in a whole new group of children being abused. The Seattle Archdiocese broke new ground under then-Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen in the late 1980's. They created a new sex-abuse policy which involved the creation of semi-independent review panels composed of both Catholics and non-Catholics. The makeup of the panel has included therapists, attorneys, prosecutors, church-law experts, and priests. The panel is headed by a bishop. They hear from accusers, review psychological evaluations of the alleged abusers, and listen to testimony from counsellors. The panel makes recommendations to the Archbishop which may include having the priest defrocked or ordering him to undergo psychological treatment. According to author Jason Berry, "Hunthausen was really the first archbishop to deal with this problem publicly. The fact that Hunthausen spoke out and was so forthright — you cannot underestimate a statement like that." Berry added that certain aspects of the policy were &qu

#373
Using dogma to defend dogma seems rather absurd, does it not? Quite unconvincing.
If you love women, allow them to be men's equal. I have two intelligent daughters and I refuse to let them partake in any organization that prevents them from being judged on their own merits expressly because they are women. I hope when they reach the age of majority they will continue to think in this vein.

The Catholic Church and Molestation: A Shameful Past
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, they teach specifically that the sexual abuse of children is a grave moral offense:
"...any sexual abuse perpetrated by adults on children or adolescents entrusted to their care. The offense is compounded by the scandalous harm done to the physical and moral integrity of the young, who will remain scarred by it, all their lives; and the violation of responsibility for their upbringing." (CCC 2389).
So while on the surface the Church is in agreement with the law of the land, the actions taken by the Church when discovering abusers in their ranks is insufficient and inconsistent with their own doctrine.
In December of 2002, Cardinal Bernard Law, the Archbishop of the Boston Diocese, resigned over his role in one of the deepest scandals in church history. It became known that priests who had been accused of sexual misconduct were routinely placed in therapy, and then transferred to different parishes when the Bishop had been advised that the abuser was fit to return to “duty.” This did nothing but compound the problem. The cause of child molestation is a deep-seated sexual psychosis. According to one study, the recidivism rate of those offenders who have never married and select extra familial boy victims is 77%. Recidivism is the continued, habitual or compulsive commission of law violations after first having been convicted or prior offenses.
Offering a few sessions with a therapist and moving the offending priest to another location where he can start all over again was hardly a solution. One of the worst examples of this practice was Father John Geoghan. In a thirty-year career, this Priest was transferred to six different parishes and was accused of molesting over 160 children.
Perhaps even more stunning than this shuffling cycle of possible molesters from town to town is the fact that from May, 2001 up until April, 2005, any acc

#378

Catholics do not have exclusivety on caring for the sick - I myself have nursed several terminally ill-people and have friends (gay) who give their time to work with the mentally ill and homeless.

I have no doubt their are those who go to church who are good people .. BUT their appears to be a very vocal section of those that do go to church and are catholics who think they have been given a right to demand that other human beings being demonised and denied equal rights.

I am afraid that I have seen too many supposed good catholics go to church to off-load then come straight out and commit the sins they atoned for hours earlier.

I do not really care what people do with their time - so long as it is not physically harming someone or involves racism, homophobia, sectarianism etc.

Nobody is perfect and so long as we treat each other with respect and do our best to help our neighbour does it really matter if two men love each other or two women love each other?

For too long the church has done it's hardest to ensure homosexuals were not treated as equals in all aspects of law and human rights - thankfully those hate mongers are being listened to less and less.

The question should be asked. Why practise religious apartheid in Scotland?
The Roman Catholic Church has forsaken any rights it thinks it has by it's disgraceful and shameful history on child welfare. They should be barred by law from having anything to do with adoption or any other rights of children, as they are legally and rightly banned from the monarchy. This is a personal view.

Duncan -I agree that there will be no concessions made since the legal process will not be re visited to introduce any amendments.I believe that adoption agencies run by faith groups will endeavour to operate without central government funding and will try to maintain services and their very useful links with the community of faith with which they are associated.If closure is forced on them thro restricted revenue funding then standards may fall and assessment and matching procedures will suffer.Further I believe that there will be protests expressed thro the elections -vote switching in traditional catholic-Labour areas -and David Cameron will gain in England and the SNP will be the beneficiaries in oor ain countrie

#326 Sage wrote "if any of the posters in this category(ie those dsimissive of Christianity )could spell out with pellucid clarity their basic frames of reference in relation to the spiritual development of children.Do they agree that children have spiritual awareness as part of their personhood.?"

As an atheist, I naturally don't accept "spiritual" awareness in anyone. But if you allow me to use the terms "emotional awareness" and "moral beliefs" as equivalents, I'll try to give a brief answer.

Like many atheists who were raised as Christians (Sunday School, etc.), most of my moral beliefs were set in biblical stories such as the good Samaritan and the other parables of the New Testament. My atheism grew partly out of the terror of the Old Testament (a jealous god, sacrificing your own son, rivers of blood, chosen tribes, etc.) and partly that it just flew in the face of facts about the world I could see for myself. (Where's this heaven above?) But even as an atheist, I wondered if it was possible to have the same moral beliefs without a Christian upbringing. I was lucky enough to meet someone who had been brought up as an atheist. We seemed to share our moral outlook, so I asked him directly where he got his moral beliefs from. He said he guessed he was born that way, or that perhaps his parents taught him.

I then realised that those bible teachings didn't teach me anything. They merely expressed views I already held, even at the age of five or six. But in the same way that the parables of Jesus expressed my morality, the story of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son expressed my moral outrage. To this day, I can think of no concept of morality more despicable.

I think many Christians and other religious people find it hard to believe that atheists, lacking in spirituality, can experience the joys and despairs of life. The joy of a hug from your child, the lump in your throat when you experien

The very idea of Gay Adoption of Children goes against the very traditional and moral fabric of Society and Decent Cilivization as we know it. Any Government or world body that seeks to legislate such repugnent policies is not wise or prudent in his or, her Judgement. Those of us who claim to be of the Tratitional Christian faith beleive that the Word of God "(The Holy Bible)", speaks against such a policy or legislation I would sincerely request that those who would attempt to push forword with such baseless policies that the please read Paul's Letter to the Romans Chapter 1: 17-32, in order to understand what God in his Word says concerning this lifestyle.

Thanks for letting me post.

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights states: Everyone has the right to freedom of THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE, and RELIGION.This right includes the right to change his religion or belief and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice or observance.
2, Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject ONLY to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of public order, HEALTH or MORALS or for the rights and freedom of others.

Now - unless I am mistaken, that means that Catholics are allowed to think what they want and even to teach whatever thay want, in public and in private.

That means they are allowed to say that homosexuality is a sin.
That means they are allowed to state that they are opposed to gays being allowed to adopt the children of heterosexuals. They can't make any of their own.
That means they are allowed to speak out against anything they consider is contrary to the common good, public health, morals, the rights and freedoms of their own community and the rights and freedoms of others.
Jeff, Brenda McK, lapsed catholic and only gay in the village of Garngad et al - That means they are as entitled to their opinions as the homosexual community.Stamp your feet and have a hissy fit all you want.Whilst you are being aggressive and in people's faces, forcing your doctrine down their throats - There are MEN sitting quietly in pubs, supping their pints and biding their time. The ballot box ain't far away.
As they say in the Garngad, Brenda, "Bum away - yer erse is yer own"
Mwaah !

Organized religion is scary, very scary.

Here in Canada we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try and undo wrongs of religious schools, for their treatment of aboriginal children, in past decades.

Church leaders in the US are facing massive lawsuits re child abuse cases. We have religious hierarchy being relocated here on the westcoast ,that were disgraced on the eastcoast. They are now working at parocial schhols in our community. All of course on the QT.

Religion = Big bucks and massive political influence.

Very scary indeed..

Thanks again Scotsman for this forum.

383 Here reads the fine words of one who would not dream of indulging in discrimination !!

Is it a good time to mention the Ombudsmans report
or shall we leave that until later.

Check as a matter of interest the range of projects run by the Archdiocese of Glasgow covering the needs of the elderly,learning difficulties,drug addiction programmes -like the Kirks work ,Scotland would be a poorer place without them.
Some teachers,scout leaders and members of other professions have also been convicted of abuse of children yet I do not sense that the entire profession is then asked to carry the entire burden of their guilt and be subject to unfounded accusations as a group of persons.
.Most abuse-sexual,physical and emotional -happens within the home with relatives and family friends featuring prominently among the numbers charged

Well said #385.

Sorry about the spelling.

2 posters from Canada

#338 reasonable/balanced

#386 well - you decide!?

Dentist # 378

Brilliant.

Duncan # 379

What's your agenda, too difficult to think for yourself that you have to copy and paste? The web makes being a bigot easy. Find an article that balances your bigotry.
Take the Catholic Church out of the social services equation and you will turn Scotland into an area of care deprevation and to reinstate those services, if you care, will mean YOUR taxes will increase.

#393

What pecentage of adoptions do the Catholic agencies perform against the total in Scotland?

NHS Greater Glasgow says about schools : Education Departments must consider their commitment to CHANGING the culture and ethos of schools through :
Policy and procedure development
Monitoring of incidents
Provision of an independent counselling service
anti bullying/complaints procedure
Open dialogue with other agencies and young people
Positive campaigning linked with PSE

ALL BEHIND THE BACKS OF PARENTS.
ALL IN SCHOOL WHERE PARENTS DON'T KNOW WHAT IS BEING SAID TO THEIR CHILDREN

WHO IS DOING THE PROPEGANDA NOW?

What's the matter ? As one granny in Garngad said, maybe she's someone who's already met Brenda - "Have they ran out of Gays and they want to make more?"

All I can say is " Out of the mouths of the elderly and the wise".

Do you bigots realise that we are already involved in your childcare???

Im a teacher, and have been for years and years...

I think I can assume that you think it completely unacceptable for an active homosexual to be in loco parentis of your kids...

Presumably you will want to have the option of having your kids taught only by confirmed Heteroes of the strictly monogamous type...

Here come the thought police over the horizon..

Never mind, at least you will all be safe from us in hospital.. surely there arent homosexuals there, in maternity and paediatric wards, or perhaps looking after older people..?

I feel the need to point out to you that we are in fact everywhere.. you meet us every day.. you buy your veg from us (better wash it carefully) sit next to us on public transport (take the car ?) and share every aspect of public life with us.

Despite your allegations, we do not force ourselves upon you (!) We are for the most part discreet and modest people, who pity your ignorance and intolerance, and give thanks for the great british public who have come out to accept and defend us in this generation...

If you want us to remove our sphere of influence from your sensitivies, please tell me, where exactly do you want us to go? You want us to disappear, dont you? You want us to go to hell..

Well, we're not going! And anyway do you realise how much you would miss us if we did ! Squint your eyes and look closer, we are everywhere around you, just as much a part of this world as birds and bees.. and just as natural.

Moral, ethical, and neccessarily more tolerant than a cathedral full of you lot..

Maybe I should petition the parliament to ban you, as you obstruct my human rights and slander my dignity.. Theres a thought.

I have a partner and several friends who have first hand experience of a catholic upbringing for homosexual children.

When they appeared to be "different" from other kids, ie displaying any hint of individuality, questioning of their faith and their sexuality the reaction they received was far from the loving and caring family that some are proclaiming is on offer here.

They were punished, physically and mentally by the nun in charge of their schools, the priests were brought to the house to intimidate and bully them into "behaving normally and not unnaturally", one friend was even "exorcised" to get rid of her "demons". After years of being "blamed" for being "different" and "abominations" in the eyes of the catholic church, when they refused to "mend" their ways and live their lives they way they were TOLD TO, they were excluded from their own families, BY their parents. Told they were an embarrassment, and they were ashamed of them, and that they were no longer a child of theirs.

Whilst not ALL catholics/christians will behave like this, this is by no means an isolated incident. In no interpretation of any religion should these things be happening. If anyone thinks these things are acceptable behaviour and allowed then they have no right to be in charge of children, and certainly no right to be sitting in judgement over people who CAN offer a loving home with enough freedom for the child to develop properly without taking all this emotional and spiritual abuse into their adulthood and beyond.

No child should have to be treated like this through religion when religion is not a concept that a child understands, and they should not be indoctrinated into without exercising their own free choice. If the child when it grows up CHOOSES to follow a certain path then so be it. I am not in approval of any religious based adoption agencies. The childs welfare, e

386.....No thanks pal, if I need my brain washed I'l split my skull and run it under the tap...thanks all the same.

#2 Scullion...good sum up
#380 .Scullion..could not agree more !!

Martha...GREAT posts All.. and quick intelligent,"comebacks".

Media 1... Much as I enjoy the above posts(of an agnostic & a Christian) I share your "view" on "GOD"(athiest)
I have been married to a devoted R.C. for 40 years
Religion has NEVER been an issue. WE RESPECT each other`s view point(my wife is an intelligent woman)
That said,.. it adds an enjoyment for me to read your "cracks" ..which in our house would NOT be said(by me) You do not hurt someone you love dearly...you just "keep your mouth shut."