Well, stepping aside from the actual detail of the issue (if that's possible), it looks like just about everything is going to be criminalised, except the stuff that really matters.

So what is it ? Free Speech or the right to discriminate ? Let's hear from the Scotsman's 'media lawyer' on this one ... *ahem*

Were just about to hit the biggest recession in history and these gophers in government have nothing better to do than impose their New World Order ideology on the rest of us

Key quote
"This is UK-wide regulation that will impact on anyone who provides goods and services, from the priest who refuses to hire the parish hall to a same-sex couple, to the editor of a Catholic newspaper who refuses to carry a Gay Pride advert, or a printer who refuses to print those adverts - they will all be criminalised by this Draconian measure. This is as close as you can get to a thought crime." - spokesman for the Scottish Catholic Media Office

Lets just insert the word 'Jewish', 'Black' or 'Muslim' in place of 'same-sex' or 'gay' and the Catholic Church is exposed for the shameful bastion of intolerance and bigotry that is has sadly become.

I ask the leaders of our church to reflect upon their actions in this matter and in doing so to consider the words of Isaiah

"When you spread out your hands, I close my eyes to you; Though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood!

Wash yourselves clean! Put away your misdeeds from before my eyes; cease doing evil;

learn to do good. Make justice your aim"

In Heaven, I am sure that God himself is weeping at the continued persecution of his gay and lesbian children being carried out in his name.

It appears the Catholic church is making empty threats. If the Catholics don't vote Labour, don't vote Liberal Democrat, don't vote Conservative and don't vote SNP in Scotland (for they all seem to be in agreement in this issue) who will carry their banner? Some Christian fringe group? I doubt that.
Also, I fear Ms Kelly is in no win situation. This article makes her appear to not have the courage of her convictions and if she did, she'd be accused of being a pawn of Rome. Ah, the excitement of being a public servant.

Good to see that most of the politicians (bar a few constitution obsessed opportunists from the SNP) are standing up to the bigots on this.

I have read the article twice and still cannot find TB's 'way through'. He has listened to and then ignored Jack McConnel, totally alienated the RCs, ignored Ruth Kelly and same sex couples face a 20month delay. The only people agreeing with him are the Tory and Liberal Leaders. TB seems to have created a 'lose lose' situation whilst claiming it is 'win win'.

Personally, I appreciated a 'day off' from this debate on Monday. I suppose we will see another 500+ 'gay bashing' posts today. I sincerely hope this is not going to rumble on for 20 months. Can't all sides of the argument unite and turn on their mutual enemy, our useless PM.

The Catholic adoption agencies already place children with single gay men and women, it has been reported during the current row. But they are saying that they want to be exempt from placing children, who are desperate for a home, with same-sex couples.

Barnardo's, a "non-Catholic" Christian adoption agency, do not base any judgement on sexuality or martial/same-sex civil partnership status.

Where is the logic?

One thing that I've noticed more and more of late in this so called democratic Britain, is that you're freely entitled to any viewpoint you want, as long as you agree with everyone else, otherwise you're quickly labelled a xxxist, or xxxxxphobic and you're treated as an ideological leper.
Surely the Catholic Church or ANY organisation should have the right to make it's own decisions for itself, regardless of how we anyone else views them - it is their porogative after all, in a FREE country.
Though I suppose that idea of old fashioned democracy is outdated these days. Ah well.

"Ruth Kelly.....last night put her career before her faith by welcoming the Prime Minister's decision."

Once upon time we had politicians whose conviction and integrity overrode party politics and spin.
What do we have now? Spineless wasters.

We live in difficult times, modern societiy in the UK was been formed through the church. Educational institutions, legal code etc...
Yet we are now saying that it is illegal for someone to hold a paticular belief. This is steping on dangerous ground. There is a dangerous precident being set when a goverment is dictateing the belief and practices of an individual and religious institutions.

No.9 Paul - Agreed

You've been able to make the point more eloquently than I could!

10 - Weeberty

You've described just about every religion on the planet. You may not believe in it (I certainly don't), but they're entitled to their beliefs, regardless of what you and I think, agreed?

Would the contents of the bible now constitute a hate crime and be banned? There is a lot more hate than love in it.

The owning and controlling classes have been marginalising the kirk since the end of WWII when most kirks came out against the use of nuclear weapons. The elite now have the media to control the masses. The kirks are superfluous.

Blair and Kelly would put any rational person off adopting the Christian faith. Hypocrites, all.

Any mono-theistic based faith system is, by definition, intolerant of others. It is time to wean folk off the teat of man-made, bulls**t, faith.

Gay/bi/straight marriage: Why get married? Just be. We don't need even more

....laws. (oops).

FinnKing in 17: it is a subjective opinion that there's more hate in bible than love. I would not agree with that assessment myself.

but I would say that if the scriptures of the various religions had to be banned because of the existence of what some lawyer called 'hate' in them, then the scriptures of all the major religions, christian, muslim & jew would all have to be banned.

But I'm in favor of freedom instead. As we americans would say 'let freedom ring'. The catholics should be able to do it the way they want, even with taxpayer money. If the public finds it so important that gay couples be able to adopt, then they should take some of their tax money and put it to a group that specifically adopts out to gays only.

let freedom ring. I know 'we' won't do that because people are failures. but that's what we should do.

It is a basic reality of life that people discriminate. When we choose out friends are we not discriminating against those whom we choose not to be friends with? In fact, the ability to discriminate within the bounds of considered reason is something to be applauded, a pattern of thought known as discernment.

The Catholic church may be considered stubborn, antiquated, wrong-footed, blind, and by some standards, unrealistic, but it could never be considered an intellectual lightweight. Its stance against homosexual adoption is not a heartless reaction against a more liberal climate but principles based on the universal attributes shared by humanity.

Among these attributes is the capacity (not a right) of men and women to procreate and it is this unique privillage which the Catholic church is defending here. If homosexuals were naturally endowed with the capacity to create life it may be that the Church would be more concilitory, but for the present homosexuals are not and therefore should go without.

We dont always get what we want and having kids was never a human right anyway.

Homosexuality is in opposition to all morality and ethics. It is against the true and pure nature of mankind. This is enough to blame it. One of the most important functions of religion is to preserve this pure nature. Therefore it is usual to see this phenomena prohibited and condemned in all established religions including Islam and Christianity. Law can not urge religious officials to believe some thing which in fact they hate . Nobody must be above the law and law must not be above the beliefs. Child adoption is a matter which must be considered with all religious and moral aspects . This is the job of church. law can not be ignorant to this institution .in almost all legal systems subjects related to family law , heritage and making a will are influenced by religion and ethics and this is good and useful . Church stand toward gay couples is a step to save humanity which is going to be destroyed by such manners. Every body must be thankful to these people who are struggling to do their duties

what about a child's right to a father and a mother? Playing devil's advocate here but I can't come to terms with gay adoption. Rationally I can't object to it but inside I feel it is wrong. Perhaps it's just some kind of ingrained evolutionary protection system.

I am Government - You will obey or be punished.

Royster 26: Or simple homophobia?

Wally & Faramars: ALL religious groups are oppressive, it's in thier nature. You trade in self responsibility/critical analysis for a belief that someone, somewhere, is tending the light at the end of the tunnel. It's a trade. Why do the main religions ban homosexual conduct? They say that it's unnatural. It happens, it goes on: therefore it's natural. Deal with it.

All laws that hinder freedom of expression are oppressive. With freedom comes responsibility. It is that that the religious crowd fail to understand.

The assumption that a gay man or woman will corrupt a child is simply ludicrous. I know some gay guys and they tend to be a lot more loving than many (so called) straight folk i've known.

I do agree that the government has no place in....well, anything really! Don't vote, it only encourages the idiots!

I wonder what Mandy says on the topic? Or how about Brown, if he remembers his pre-marital days?

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, Labour could not have come up with a bigger Public Relations mess if they tried.
Then again there is the war in Iraq...John Reid's legal meddlings etc.

Seems this debate has become an exercise in Catholic bashing.

It's also amusing to see people using the word 'bigot' in the process. The words 'Kettle' and 'black' spring to mind.

Same old Scotland, same old story.

ps. Do you think the government would be so quick to rule against muslim beliefs on a public issue??

The Catholic Church is enirely correct:

Gay rights should be respected in society but the Church has the prerogative to protect and promote marriage between a man and a woman creating and family.

No violation of justice should be justified by appeal to the ideal of equality - for that ideal is logically dependent on the ideal of justice.

Reverse discrimination, which attempts no other justification than an appeal to equality - reagrdless of justice, is wrong.

The favoured minority - gays - have their 'rights'. They can adopt (90% of adoption agencies will refer to appropriate gay couples).

The Catholics, are having their rights to freedom of conscience denied - as from 2008, no Catholic will be able to give a child over to adoption knowing that the child will be adopted by a non-gay couple.

The denial of rights to freedom of religion and conscience undermines the foundation of the very ideal in whose name it is advocated - is destroys justice and created arbitrary power struggles.

The shrill protest wins over justice . .. . .

The SCMO spokesman is stirring it up. As far as I can tell, the law concerns who you can offer goods and services too, not the nature of the goods and services you offer.

For example, say someone wants to rent the church hall for a lecture on the distribution of lesser spotted blue moths in the Andes. The law says they can't refuse on the grounds that the applicant is gay. Is the church saying they should be able to? I don't think the law has anything to say on whether the church must rent out the hall for the purpose of say a gay pride rally.

If I'm wrong about this, please correct me.

Weeberty

I think you need professional help. You are making such a fuss about paedophiles I begin to wonder what your problem is. Are you gay? Have you been refused a child?

This is a quote from a previous poster on Scotland on Sunday - if true . . . well, it suggests that the Church is correct to take a militant position:

"Reflect for a moment on the 1985 ‘Labour Gay Rights Manifesto’ It is a direct threat to traditional family life and the welfare of our children for it states:-

‘'Children grow up under the power of their parents. As children, any behaviour which is obviously sexual in adult terms is repressed… A socialist society would supersede the family household… Gay people and children should have the right to live together… Children and young people should have the right to determine their own sexual lives… Marriage should be disestablished… Women need access to free contraception and abortion facilities; this applies just as much to young women as to 'adults.' Children should be able to divorce their parents… It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent.'

At an education conference homosexual Stephen Twigg MP, then labour Schools Minister, stated it is '...not enough' for schools merely to promote homosexuality. They are admonished to a 'celebration of diversity encouraging differences of sexual orientation...' This is a major shift of extreme importance because it truly exposes the gay agenda that wants to encourage homosexuality in our children. Another means of ‘encouraging differences of sexual orientation.’ Young school children will be taught the graphic and sordid details of queer sex and be involved in role playing in pretend gay families.

A Government quango, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, thinks that children as young as five should be taught about homosexual lifestyles and divorce. Parents need to respond to this creeping pressure if they are to protect their children. Children in local authority care or with same-sex parents will not be preserved from this influence. Moreover, then came a demand in 2006 from the National

There is just one word to describe Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly 'HYPOCRITE'

Timothy, I am a Catholic.

Am I a fool?

Are all the one billion Catholics in the world all fools?

Maybe you should go on a wee lecture tour and enlighten us all.

Or you could stick to half baked angry statements on here.

The vile, militant, politicised Catholic Church continues to spin its numbers into a political force that includes decent, ordinary Catholics who are being whipped up in this whirlwind of hate and bigotry. In truth, the numbers of militants among those attending church are less than those filling gay clubs on a Saturday night. (And that’s with the present favour towards the expression of being ‘non-scene’ within the gay community)! Labour and SNP have both promised more faith-schools for militant religionists to turn Scotland into a cess-pool of theocratic hate. Why build more problems for tomorrow? ONLY LIB-DEMS AND GREENS GUARANTEE A SECULAR SCOTLAND! At last, religionists and Catholic propagandists on newspapers will no longer be able to spill their venomous rhetoric in the pages of newspapers without a degree of balance and fairness. www.scottishmediamonitor.com

....... and this useless debate rumbles on.

The Cathoilics can moan all they want. They're NOT gettting their way. For once, the govt is absolutely right and I applaude them for not kowtowing to a ANY religion.

The state is NOT a Theocracy. Get used to it.

Of course children will be placed with your "nuclear family" of mummy, daddy and siblings IF and WHEN its possible!

IF it isn't, then solutions are sought to foster/adopt children because orphanages are a thing of the past and we are well rid of them. The welfare of the child comes first always.

I'd rather hear from other people who have or have been fostered and/or adopted than 95% of the windbags on this forum. They're the ones who can tell us best what works.

Finkking 28
Hi
Quote: “They say that it's unnatural. It happens, it goes on: therefore it's natural. Deal with it”
Robbery, murder, war, corruption , child misuse, alcoholism and thousands of other illegal and immoral matters happen daily . can we say they are natural because they happen every day ? really NO.

No.9...
No 11 might think you were eloquent, but 6 spelling mistakes in 6 lines takes some beating!

No one is perfect ,The church Raped and pilaged its way across the worl forcing people to convert,
Dont see what all the fuss is about.

Whether one agrees with gay adoption or not is NOT the issue. The issue is the state vs the church in a battle in which the church can NOT win.

Britian is a secular society, the church has no say in the running of her democracy. The church CANNOT impose laws on the people, they used to be permitted to do that many centuries ago, but not now. Whether it goes against their beliefs or not, the law is the law and they will need to take heed of it or face the consequences as we would if we broke it.

If the RCC was trying to prevent gays from adopting altogether then I would have agreed with this law but they were not so IMO this law is yet again another kick in the teeth from government for a large majority group of this country just to appease a minority group.
If the government can exempt some from the laws that the rest of us have to live by on religious grounds then I cannot see why they could not do the same in this case.
It seems to me that when these "rights" laws come into being for one person they deny the rights of another.

Media - do you think that the wonderful government that we have is always right in making top down decisions?

Home Office mess, Iraq, Nuclear weapons being replaced, prisons scandal, cash for peerages.

The government has already imposed a whole set of policies on us that are not in the best interests of individuals and society.

You'll find that a lot of people (not just Catholics) would want to retain the right to have children adopted in a heterosexual family unit.

You appear to have interpreted this in very simplistic and, can I say naive terms.

If I'm wrong, please respond to my posts on #35 and #32. I'd be very interested to see your views

This debate could rage until the end of time. In short, the key dividing line is where the law ends and morality / behaviourial standards begin coupled with, on this occasion,#27 - Conan- "We are the government, obey or you will be punished". Personally, I won't accept any government dictating to me on those areas of behaviour that are my choice as long as my behaviour does not impinge or adversely affect others. Here we have the law effectively imposing codes of conduct where they are totally unnecessary.

Those with true courage stand up for their beliefs - Nelson Mandela - those with no fibre acquiesce. I am entirely neutral in terms of attitude to the Catholic Church but, on this occasion, I wish them all strength to their views.

#8, holding your own viewpoint and discriminating against someone because of that view are two different things.
The Rc church is one othe most bigoted organisations in the world, they are guilty of gross discrimination not only against gays but against any group who does not adhere strictly to their tennets.
There are very good and proven reasons why religion and state should be kept separate and religion should have nothing to do with the governing process.

#46, if you think that the Rc church would ever agree to a gay couple adopting under any circumstances then you are either vey naive or very stupid

#47 DeBono: Britian will is a secular society we cannot have the church demanding preferential treatment..

If the government permits that to happen then the next step will be the Muslim clerics in Britain moving for a ban on muslim women driving WITHIN Britain..It will not matter that our laws permit ALL women to drive, it will only matter what the churches laws permit.

So I say NO TO ALL intereferance from organised religious groups

Infidel
cease fire
Homosexuality is not apart of human nature. It is hated by all who understand human pure nature. If it was so ,it was not challenged by those who are worried about human dignity.
According to article 1041 0f Iran civil code which was reformed in 2003 marriage of girls under thirteen is forbidden except in cases with guardian permission and a court approval. As a lawyer I have never found a case in which an Iranian court has permitted a less than 13 girl marriage to be registered. Age of marriage in our country is becoming high and officials are worried about this.

The new laws are unenforceable because they are illegal on human rights grounds.

28: Just because you claim something is natural doesn't make it right. And just because someone has a genetic or hormonal defect making them homosexual doesn't make it right to persecute them.

The bottom line here (no pun intended) is that unless you consider homosexual couples to be normal (and by statistical definition they aren't), by allowing them to adopt, you are putting a child in an abnormal situation, one which is sadly likely to increse their chances of being bullied. You may think that such bullying is wrong, but it happens just as it happens to any child who is seen as different. Pragmatically, therefore, it would be better not to have children placed with homosexual couples. They are not a lifestyle accessory.

What is driving this is the vociferous homosexual lobby, the "1 in 10" brigade who claim that their hormonal or genetic state is shared by 1 in 10 of the population - a vast exaggeration which in any proper debate would be torn to shreds. Some of these people want to be in your face rather than being courteous and civilised and living their lives in a manner which isn't designed to raise other people's hackles. Some things in life you can't have. And don't start bleating about homophobia - the catch-all attempted insult thrown at anyone who doesn't enthusiastically endores homosexuality.

Has anyone thought of asking the children concerned whether or not they want to go and live with 2 homosexuals? Shouldn't that be taken into account? Or are children not to be allowed to think for themselves, instead being brainwashed by Big Brother?

We all come from The same Human family,Muslim, Homosexuals catholic, infidels,Get over it

#28. I can see why you may think that but calling me a homophobe is like calling someone who is anti-Israel an anti-semite. I am just being honest, perhaps my opinion would change if I knew more about the subject.

42: Yes, they are natural. So is moral decision making, killing animals, scientific research...it's all NATURAL. If you start saying that one particular activity is good (legal) and another is bad (illegal), then you have just entered the Fascist Zone, my friend. You, as a human being, can make your own moral choices. When you use the church and the state law to enforce your moral choices you cross the line towards fascism.

Also. regarding the Mohammed wife stuff: How many european kings (Christians every one) 'married' pre-pubescents? It's a flawed argument and is designed to cause division amongst those who have specific faiths. I support people's moral choices: that's all.

No glasses just now, sorry for typos!

The catholic church should worry about the millions it is murdering every year with it's policies on contraception and the, lives destroyed by their child abuse cover-ups,statistics prove that same-sex partners are very successful especially with problem children.

Kids wouldn't know what being homosexual meant unless you graphically tell them. I'm sure they would also be revolted by the thought of mum and dad at it too.

However Alastair, you have a point. The media is a lot to blame here though. They protray homosexuals as anything but normal and mannered folks and unfortuantely it's given us, the hetrosexual, the wrong impression.

It would do no harm if homosexuals got a hold on the media to portray the more accurate picture, that they are as normal as you and I.

#55 your last sentence might easily refer to the Catholic Church itself and its defence of its state funded faith schools.

There is no God yet children are brainwashed with this nonsense from a young age.

This is a difficult moral issue but religion should have no part in any decision making

#53. Is your name Sacha Baron-Cohen by any chance?

Sorry Royter: I didn't mean it in a 'bad' way. It was a genuine suggestion for thought. We are brought up in a society that demonises portions of that very society, it's ingrained in our education, media etc. (or was). We are the products of a lot of propaganda against minorities. No offence was implied, honestly.

So maybe the RC church will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century from the Dark Ages.

Next thing you know we will have female priests and they will be able to marry!

Or perhaps thats one fantasy to far.

A SOCIETY IN TERMINAL DECLINE.....no-one should be forced to do something against their conscience or beliefs ! Would same sex couples even think of approaching a Catholic agency given their known views !

Is Third World Poverty or Climate change or Pension Crisis and Etc Etc better addressed than this drivel !!

#63. No problem.

They could always go to another agency. Doctors have the personal moral right to refurse abortions, where are these rights for catholic organisation.

Blair just does not care anymore about anything.

Vote him out

My older brother wouldnt talk to me because i was gay(same partner 20yrs),All he spoke about how bright he was, doing a nurses course for years,
Then mum was dying in her own home ,I ended up nursing her till the end ,And if you have experienced that ,You will know what that entails.
Anyway ,The Big brother man of the world churchy person wasnt to be seen and he only lived next to mum .And when he did show up with his x wife ,Mum messed .And he flew into kitchen with all the women crying .I dont hate him hes my brother ,

Now that Blair and Kelly have rolled over to the anti-church brigade we can only pin our hopes on Gordon Brown. He will be PM before this law comes in and it remains to be seen how this son of the church will react.

Another time-bomb from the master of sleaze.

the concept of thought crime is already established in several european countries, holocaust deniers are prosecuted about their beliefs/thoughts regarding the Jewish, Armenian, russian, chinese, rawandan holocausts. Either we have freedom of speech & thoughts or we dont have any, but i would support there right to believe what they think even if i completly disagree & are disgusted by them. Were all intellegent enough (well most of us)to discount the beliefs we dont agree with. The truth needs no laws to protect it. The Church can stop taking taxpayers money & believe & practise what they want.

I think the majority of gay people would do a good job in bringing up children but what worries me most is. Will this adoption to single people and non traditional family people (gays) open the floodgates for paedophiles to home in. We have all read of how far reaching and cunning they can be.
It is enevitable that this will go through. what I would like to see is steps taken to safeguard children from this.

Dave (60): It appears to me that the homosexual lobby have excellent contacts in the media already. Their agenda is given extensive coverage, way out of proportion to their numbers. And as regards image-building, is the very use of the word "gay" not intended solely to give a warm friendly cuddly image? As regards "normal" - by statitical definition, something that has a 2% to 4% occurrence isn't "normal".

Why doesn't the government just keep its nose out and stop trying to impose thought control? And in this particular subject, is the proportionately large number of homosexuals in high office in the government and its associated organisations to blame for continually pushing a homosexual agenda which is of little interest to the vast majority? Frankly there are more important problems in the world.

This piece of legislation makes a mockery of christian beliefs.

It was pushed through vehemently on the pretext of anit-discrimination by Freemasons who do whatever they can to undermine Christian values and ideals in our society.

After all thats the chief reason the Freemasons were formed.

Woe to our society who provoke God's anger by debasing ourselves lower than animals.

#70 Eric
Denial is one of the mechanisms we all use when faced with a situation that we find impossible to accept. For many, observing our parents grow frail and progressively more dependant on others is hard, for some it is heartbreaking. The fact he flew into the kitchen only proves his love for mum. And yes he is your brother, my younger brother passed away a little over 18 months ago at 45 years old. There was so much I would have liked to have said to him, maybe you should try to approach yours again and talk. There may not be a tomorrow.

So answer my question then:

If the RCC are permitted to defy the laws of the land based on their religious beliefs does that mean that the Muslim clerics in Britian should be able to defy the law by insisting that all British Muslim ladies be prohibited from driving within Britain?

How depressing. Another day of bigotry and ignorance in Scotland as illustrated by many of the posts here.

For those of you who are enjoying a spot of Catholic bashing, please try to bear in mind that there are, in fact, millions of us who are quietly involved in good works throughout the country and the world and who contribute a considerable amount of money to charitable organisations every week through the auspices of the Church. We don't expect thanks and we don't expect acknowledgement but we do expect a bit of respect -please try to remember that when you are indulging in your own form of ignorance and bigotry.

Where does it end? Religion can play no part in the everyday running of a country.

Religion created divide, it is evil, it is damaging and it is separatist. We cannot allow it a place in the running of any society. One need only look at the history of the church in question to understand that.

#40 "Homosexuality is a harmless variation of human sexuality, it is a small part of mankind's nature, and only opposed by irrational "morality", like Bronze Age superstition in the Bible"

The reality is that homosexuality is inherently more dangerous than heterosexuality in terms of contracting disease. Mortality rates for male homosexuals are much higher than for associated peer groups - by as much as 21 years less life expectancy.

The moralities/ societal norms which arose in just about every major religion in the world generally banned anal intercourse because, on a purely observational level, they noticed that people who had anal sex died in very nasty ways. Before modern medicine they had no idea why - so they called it 'God's judgement'. We now know that the reason was anal transmission of: gonorrhoea, syphilis, hepatitis, tuberculosis, shigella, many other 'plagues' and now HIV (which may have been around 2,000 years ago).

Similarly, they noticed that people who had lots of promiscuous heterosexual sex also died of similar nasty diseases, or, more often, were sterile - from chlamydia and other diseases.

Promiscuous sex has always been dangerous, which is why social moral codes evolved; people are not stupid; they noticed that promiscuous people died of nasty diseases. Homosexuals died at a much higher rate because anal sex transfers pathogens much more easily than normal sex. That is never going to change - its biology.

Take a look at Guys Hospital annual report:

http://www.gktgazette.com/2001/feb/news.asp#hiv
"The level of undiagnosed HIV-1 infection among homosexual and bisexual men did not fall between 1993 and 1998, indicating a high level of continuing transmission. . . . The findings suggest that men with acute sexually transmitted infections represent a significant risk for HIV-1 transmission. These men p

Sefl Respect Sarah B, correct. As apposed to the respect of others.

WeeBerty # 21

What's the matter WeeBerty, can you stand the competition? Do you realise that you are sending messages out about your own sexuality and proclivities here? You protest too much.

North Lanarkshire is known as a bastion of reason in Scotland, in fact you are an embarrassment to Scotland for your rabid, protestant supremacist views.

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but is it not the case that all the children to be adopted and whose lives we are trying to salvage, have already come from a hetrosexual relationship - which clearly has failed if they are being adopted.

(I exempt the odd case where both parents are killed etc)

So there's no guarantees that a male/female pairing is good for them at all.

A thoughtful gay relationship is perhaps a better environment than any institutional care - like Nazareth House for example...

Tweedmouth # 82

Interesting and valid points you make there and they beg other questions. Is the government going to allow HIV positive gay couples to adopt children?

I think those who are supporting the Blair stance on this are missing the point, especially those who say things like "substitute black or Jewish". Racism isn't an issue of conscience. Racists have no logic or reasoning, and discriminate because they hate or fear those of different colour. The RC Church does not dislike, hate or preach intolerance of homosexuals, but regards homosexual acts as sinful. This isn't their decision - they can't change what they believe to be God's mind and it's therefore an issue of conscience.

Currently, RC adoption agencies refer gay couples on to other agencies, so I don't see why there should be a problem here, particularly in view of the relative success of the Church in handling adoptions. Everyone agrees that their follow up checks and care are second to none, and there is statistically less chance of the adoption breaking down. Who will be the losers here?

Anyway, I'm away down to my local halal butchers to demand that they stop discrimating against non-Muslims, and start selling pork.

Food lover # 85

You can quote Nazareth House if you want, but the abuse that happened to kids, that weren't wanted by other organisations, happened in less enlightened times. At the same time children were being belted daily in schools using the justification of "in loco parentis." Why aren't Scottish educational authorities being sued for the excesses inflicted in the schools in those unlightened days?
Nazareth House is an easier target for greedy, opportunistic lawyers, especially in bigoted Scotland.

Reading through all these comments, there is soooo much hysteria. If myself and my partner (both women) wanted to adopt, and we were told that was unsuitable because, say, we didn't have the expertise to meet a particular special need, or indeed if a child living in our home was likely to experience terrible bullying that we couldn't stop, then I'm sure we'd accept that.

What I can't accept, though, is people jumping to the conclusion that there is something inherently bad about us just because we are a same-sex couple. We're good neighbours, caring family members, and even spiritual - are we bad people??

To all those who would automatically brand someone in any way because of their sexuality, because of their colour or because of their religion, have a read at some of the accounts of 1930s Germany. It's scary, and it happened here in Europe. We've all a lot to learn about tolerance and respecting each other.

78 Thanks for your kind words mate,I have approached him and will kepp approaching him,But im afraid he seems even more distant now ,I dont think he can look me in the face anymore ,I know he feels a bit ashamed that he dint take more to do with it,But i know everyone deals with things differently.Mum gave him the oppertunity by asking him to come up to the house ,I dont hold it against hm.His x wife says hes beating himself up about the way he treated me the years before,Ive learnt to live with it from other folk as well,

78 Im so sorry for your loss.

wrapping your faith in god into a set of man made interpretations of a book should be a crime against the state and society in my book. why can't all the sheep on this planet walk off the end of the flat earth together?

as a non beleiver i say this. you'll all go to hell whatever your religion because each and every one of you are in this for man made church and tradition and for self gratification to make yourselves feel good and ease your own conscience.

as for gays and adoption. morals don't come into it. religion doesn't come into it. it just doesn't seem to click - like it's against some natural law. it's akin to one day waking up and finding out all the fittest have died and you are left with the weakest running the show (hmm - now there's a thought), it just is against natural selection and doesn't feel right.

that said in the interests of the child it would be better to have a family than to not have one. of course that then leads me to conclude gay couples should be last in line - in order of natural selection.

Most of the rubbish about bigotry etc. here is a smokescreen. This is nothing to do with bigotry and all about the law of the land. The lawa states equal opportunity and that's that . Like it or not it means that NO organsiation can discriminate or opt out.
If the state funded RC adoption agency can't live with that then they need to either fund it themselves and try and fight the law or pack in.
If they were given an opt out this surely would work against them since if there are so many bigots then they could also opt out of the equal opportunity law and get rid of all RC's if they so choose.
Absolute and utter nonsense expecting to be able to opt out of a LAW.

Jammyjam, so you think its correct that people should be legislated into appreciating that youre capable of raising a family? Wouldnt it be better to change attitudes by showing them your capable rather than having the government fight your battles for you? There are plenty of agencies who take homosexual couples and in time normal well adjusted children emerging from such families would be the best possible way of changing attitudes. All Labours moral crusade has done is create increased resentment amongst a religion that was just beginning to start thinking of these values as outdated.

Your reference to nazi germany is spurious. I fail to see how the government legislating to force others to change their mind (fat chance) can be compared to the persecution of homosexuals under the third reich. When the police start beating gay people in the streets, then talk to me.

GP great argument. Shame its only the third of the most difficult to place children, the terminally ill, the disabled, the abused, the traditionally hard to place in LA care because nobody but those with strong faith want them - shame its only them that have to pay for your ridiculous, petty law.

The Catholic Church accusing others of "thought crimes"? Who's the pot and who's the kettle?

61 - Foodie - "This is a difficult moral issue but religion should have no part in any decision making."

Have to disagree. Almost all religious organisations consider themselves to offer insight into morality. Trying to divide the two is absurd.

72 - Hugh - you've suggested the answer which will be implemented. Organisations will twin and those who provide these services but have moral issues with homosexual adoption will continue as before. It's a fuss over nothing.

79 - media - I'll raise to the bait again. There's a difference between a Catholic organisation deciding what it wants to do (provide children with a particular type of home) and say a muslim organisation stopping women from driving. The latter example suggest to me you have islamaphobic issues, but in any event it's the impostion on others of a code they have not chosen. (If they had chosen to join they can vountarily decide not to drive.)

80 and 89 Sara and Cankers have provided some insight. It is about respect. Both sides ought to be respected and the above compromise will probably enable it in this instance. Is it the case that the lack of respect which the homosexual community feels it has and continues to have, the reason for their attempts to religion-bash?

55, you say that by statistical definition, homosexuality isn't normal. Why not look at history where egyptians, romans, the greeks, all participated in homosexual activity. Many had same sex relationships which were only frowned upon once organised religion took over.

And humans are not the only species to have homosexual relationships - read the article below to see how homosexuality and same-sex relationships occur and are even considered 'normal' in the animal world.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-2527347_1,00.html

At the end of the day, this law is NOT about gay adoption. It is about ending discrimination for gay people when they try to buy goods or access public services. When you do that, you can not have an opt out clause for one particular group, religious or otherwise.

Let Catholics have their beliefs but if those beliefs mean the discrimination of one group over another, then it crosses a line.

55, you say that by statistical definition, homosexuality isn't normal. Why not look at history where egyptians, romans, the greeks, all participated in homosexual activity. Many had same sex relationships which were only frowned upon once organised religion took over.

And humans are not the only species to have homosexual relationships - read the article below to see how homosexuality and same-sex relationships occur and are even considered 'normal' in the animal world.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-2527347_1,00.html

At the end of the day, this law is NOT about gay adoption. It is about ending discrimination for gay people when they try to buy goods or access public services. When you do that, you can not have an opt out clause for one particular group, religious or otherwise.

Let Catholics have their beliefs but if those beliefs mean the discrimination of one group over another, then it crosses a line.

There must be loads of Catholics who are gay -- what do they think about all this?

What a mess the catholic church is in. It preachs one thing and does another. One day the catholic church says it welcomes all people the next it's saying... well everyone but this one and that one.. oh and of course we don't want gays or lesbians raising our kids. It really needs to take a good look at itself before it starts pointing fingers at others.

I personally believe that if homosexual relationships were suppose to be the base of a family then both men and women would have the ability to become pregnant. I believe that Women are suppose to be mothers and Men are suppose to be fathers and that between them they make up the core/base of a family. That's what's natural... It's natural for the woman to become pregnant and carry and bare the children. That's the way it is and nothing is going to change that, ever. It's also natural that the woman needs a man... no matter what... to become pregnant. That's the way it's suppose to be. That's what human bodies dictate to be the natural process. No matter how you look at it or do it, it takes both a man and a woman to make a child.

I don't believe in homosexuallity but I do believe in people and don't condem people because of their sexual beliefs. I have many homosexual friends and acquaintances and although I believe a man and a woman should be the father and mother in a family I still believe that some homosexual couples would make brilliant parents, more so than even some 'straight' couples I know.

Lets not also forget the SNP are all for this legislation- indeed Nicola Sturgeon et al are part of the package.

When you go to vote in the May elections- Rem- Independence brings a brigade as bad as we have at the moment- check your conscience when voting SNP in May.

These MSP's don't come with a "clean pair of hands" as many of them are driven by h***se*uals themselves- I think it's important here they declare there sexuality before being allowed to vote on these issues- "declaring an interest".

Is there not something in the Human Rights Act about "allowing oneself to manifest their religious beliefs" I'm sure this would be a good angle to approach.

When can legislation interfere with your religious beliefs ?? This is the worst type of legislation that can be forced upon us- I see all these sex deviants all laughing at us squabbling over these issues-

Laws are made to protect the vulnerable- How about the children here- this legislation is about allowing Ho*m*'s rights- not about the children.

Time to leave the country- It's a mess

It would appear that certain elements within the government were not only expecting a confrontation with the RC Church over the adoption issue, but were also relishing the prospect of it.
It is secular arrogance to believe that a government, British or otherwise, could ever change the core beliefs or teachings of the Catholic Church.
It is a battle the government will certainly lose.

Another nail in the coffin of the Labour party.
An illegal war is made legal.
A legal agency is made illegal.

10 years is long enough for any one party in a democracy.

Vote For Change.

"Horrible" (89) - Of course it is not acceptable to "gay-bash". It is not acceptable to "bash" anybody. I have never in my life heard it preached by the Catholic Church that intolerance of others is acceptable - quite the contrary.

A priest once said to me that the Church lays down tenets on countless moral questions but that it is the individual who must form a view on that stance, based on their own conscience. He said that because it is ordinary people who are struggling with these moral questions, "nothing is ever black and white - only shades of gray". There are some aspects of the Church's teachings with which I can't agree, but I am not classed as a "bad Catholic". I know I have a right to live my life according to my own conscience and, despite what many posters here seem to think, I am able to do that within the RC Church. I am just saddened to see from some of the posts here today that there are so many people still out there who have a picture of the Catholic Church which is simply not accurate.

This particular issue is about children. No-one seems to dispute that the Catholic Adoption Agency offers excellent standards of care to the children. I fail to understand why that now has to be jeoparidised.

Jimmy #75, Please don't offend homosexuals by comparing them to paedophiles. Most lesbian and gay people are as appalled by paedophilia as most heterosexual people.

#110 Sarah B
I am not a Catholic but (not though you need my permission!!) I have no problem with you being one if you want to. I think that some people have lost the point of the whole adoption thing - the best thing for the child. In a perfect world a child would be brought by loving parents but sometimes that just doesn't happen. If you ignore the gay community as candidates (and I'm not sure about whether they would make great "parents" or not) what do you do with the kids who have no-one? Stick them in a children's home? That's worked so very well in the past, hasn't it?

By the way, do you think Ruth Kelly strives for the "dragged through a hedge backwards" look?

Tony Will not be remembered for anything speacial. He made mistake after mistake, starting with Iraq and supporting Americe like a puppy. Now upset the Church he is likely to join, if he does I leave!

There is an obvious point which is often overlooked in regard to homosexuality. Despite the permissive legislation which recent governments have passed concerning sexual relationships (which is now being followed up by enforcing legislation threatening any who disagree with the permissive legislation) the moral law of God which governs our behaviour is unchanged. Sin remains sin. Homosexuality and lesbianism are in a special category because they are unnatural lusts. "for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:26,27). We are all sinners and will be punished in hell unless we repent and seek God's forgiveness through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Glasgow will be relieved the super casino went to manchester

I would be more worried about giving children to anyone who is 'so called' celibate. ie. a priest. Than an honest and open practicing gay person. Married or single. It worries me that the Catholic Church seem to think it OK to give children to 'so called' celibate gays, look the at child abuse commited by celibate priests.
Personally I don't think celibacy is natural.

The bulk of comments about the RCC on this thread are spot on.

The problem they have with Gay people will continue to expose them for what they are.

As for Kelly, she should never have been allowed within a hundred miles of that job.

#5 John M. - The dangerous bigots are not the RC Church, but the liberal fascists who insist on tolerance for everything except free speech and the right to disapprove of wrong behaviour.
Weeberty - where do I send the fish to go with all those chips on your shoulders
#28 Finnking "All laws that hinder freedom of expression are oppressive. With freedom comes responsibility. It is that that the religious crowd fail to understand" The "religious crowd" seem to understand it better than most - it not they who are imposing these laws - they just want to do their own thing in their own way.

Labour is whipping MPs to follow the party line.
Why?
They will get this legislation through the House of Commons easily, with support from many Conservatives.

As they did with the illegal Iraq War.

Labour did not force MPs to vote the party way
on other conscience issues.

Vote For Change.

iT'S ALL ABOUT BLAIR'S ALTAR OF POLICAL CORRECTNESS which is not that difficult to describe which simply means 'No Arguments. Just Obey' which has proved horrefying from a political. human. and moral aspect. which shows that our country is heading for a national calamity. all thanks to Blair's POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. therefore i cant see the R C Church giving in to Blair's autocracy like the British public has.

Well said 'ladybicker- Post 118'
I also have no religion, and consider myself unpoluted by belief.

The vast majority of posts on here have not mentioned the children they are to busy attacking each side for totally different reasons.

As this debate rages on and on, have we forgotten that the RCC, whilst they may have the right to their freedom of speech and thought, do not have the right to impost their views on the children to which they owe a duty of care. When selecting couples, they must base their selection process purely on what is best for the child. This must be decided on criteria which is non-discriminatory, just as we wouldn't allow them to base their decision on someone's skin colour, nor should we allow them to base it on someones sexual "preference", which as any non-bigot understands is not actually a choice.

Whilst its absolutely right to make judgements based on the couples lifestyle (i.e. if they went out drinking every night they wouldn't be considered suitable) we should not allow the prejudice of the Committee who manage the agency to prevent a same-sex couple from adopting based purely on POLICY and not on any assessment of their abilities, this is DISCRIMINATION. And whilst I appreciate that this law will prevent these "do-gooders" from operating these agencies and keeping within their faith, that is for their own concience and a problem which we should not be changing or delaying legislation to accommodate.

JG (112) - I agree that the issue here is what is best for the child but I also think that the current system seemed to be working well. Whether or not I agree with the Church's stance on this, it seems that other agencies will consider gay candidates as prospective parents. It is a matter of personal conscience and I should imagine that, as someone has already mentioned, a system may emerge, similar to Catholic doctors being able to not perform abortions.

As for Ruth Kelly's hair - I think it is a result of realising the hoo-ha this would cause. After reading some of the comments here, my hair is now exactly the same as hers!

Thanks for the answer Hugh#109. But who decides how "good" an argument is? I don't think things get sorted this way because there is no consensus.
I asked what do the gay Catholics think about all this because they must find it very difficult.
Girls I went to uni with were told by their Catholic nun teachers -- homosexuality is another form of love. Whereas we (at a Church of England school) were told things that were so negative about gays we found it hilarious.

Can people please distinguish between having your own beliefs which you want to act upon and forcing your opinions on others.

So the catholic church believes that sexual activity outside marriage is wrong. It acts accordingly and tells its followers to do likewise. That does not involve 'bashing' anyone, it does not involve intolerance, but it does involve refusing to work with some people on some issues. These people are able to get the service from other agencies and there seems no evidence of anyone losing out or being prejudiced.

What the government is doing is saying that if you have a caring nature and want to help look after children requiring adoption you must work do so in accordance with their morality and can not have a conscientious objection. If that is followed to the extreme children will lose out.

Who is intolerant?

Well done Tony...

tweedwood...I am glad you spent some time doing your (anti gay) research on HIV.... Now could you do the smallest bit of research and perhaps google straight people and HIV...
Your little rant was obviously because you dont like or more to the point dont understand gays...so please just stick to the "fairy" stories in your bible...

I'm interested by the anti-Labour agenda which the Scottish Catholic Media Office has.

It is run by someone called Peter Kearney, who just happens to have been an SNP parliamentary candidate on several occasions.

134. Ahh - now I see it. We should teach our children nothing as that way there's no indoctrination. Or perhaps we should only teach our children that which the government says is right? Or perhaps we should miss out anything like morality/religion?

Or perhaps we should teach them what we think is right? One thing which we scots have always taught our children is a (un)healthy degree of cynicism - that and information are the way to avoid indoctrination.

I can see the benefits and flaws of the church which I support but like Sara I find that the intolerance and hatred of that church is a sad reflection of our society.

99# please provide a link to the evidence of adoption policies you alude to.

I await with interest.

*132 bill-alba Fife . .

. . . would this comment have been allowed if it was implying that the Koran was a 'fairy' story. . .

. . . this whole matter is about not respecting and understanding peoples ideological beliefs . . .

. . . the church should have the right to uphold their beliefs . . . not have them criminalised . . .

I've read through the comments here and am left wondering what are we talking about here ... is not catholism a christian faith? Does not christianity endeavor to teach us love, tolerance and comapssion towards all living things regardless of race, religion, sexuality, colour of our skin etc?

And for those of you who choose the freedom argument. Freedom does not mean we have the right to abuse, judge, and condemn others or as i this case take away their right to provide a child with a loving environment regardless of the sex of the parents. Who says what is 'normal' and what is 'right' for a a child. Is it ok for a child to be brought up by a mother and father that row all the time, drink, are violent, just because they form a tradiional idea of 'a family'.

It is NOT an infringment of human rights to want to protect the rights of ALL people.

And those who would argue that the bible says homosexuality is wrong .. then please read it again .. because there are a lot of things in the old testament whcih non of us would agree to adhere to .. for instance the ritual sacrifice of an ox on a sat ... or how about having seperate homes that women have to retreat to when they are menstrating each month because they are unclean. The bible was not written in our times, it was written for a different time and was a guide book which emcompassed the beiefs of that time. Evidence of this is the differences in the old and new testaments. Are we stuck in a time warp? Did not Christ want us to take his lessons and develop them let them grow so we bacome a more tolerant society? Good point to remember is that it was not written by God but by man ... and anyone with one ounce of intelligence would understanding that whilst being a great guide .. we also have to read it with caution .. ever played chinese whispers? How easy is it for information and stories cahnge as it is passed from teller to teller!

Everyone is free to belief whatever they choose but i

It's time to expose the truth!
Gay adoption has it's roots in Population Control

Homosexuals have the power to manipulate damaging disclosure about their life-style and an ability to fashion laws and attitudes that enhance it. They claim the role of the victim as the one who is harassed by the heterosexual community, when in fact they abuse their own minds and bodies. Repeatedly claiming they were born that way, they seek to stultify criticism and objection.

But internationally known lesbian activist Camille Paglia has observed, 'Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction... No one is born gay. ... homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.' There is a lot of experiential evidence to back her assertion, but gays reject this to deny any evidence of 'choice'. The claim that queers are born that way is scientifically baseless.

Homosexuality emerges as a complex socially conditioned behaviour, which can and does change. Thousands of homosexuals recuperate each year. Thus, the American Psychiatric Association; a formidable professional body that strongly supports gay rights; observes in their Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation (2000), 'There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.'

Moreover, in 2005 a research team at the University of Illinois screened the entire human genome system. Led by Dr. Brian Mustanski, he concluded, 'Sexual orientation is a complex trait. There is no one "gay" gene.' Homosexual propaganda consistently ignores such scientific evidence.

More telling, an Australian study of identical twins in 2000 found only 20% male homosexual and 24% female homosexual had a gay twin. Yet if genes determine sexual orientation, the figure should be 100% because importantly, identical twins have identical genes.

So, if the condition is not biologically determined, it has to be embraced as a life-choice - something most gays utterly reje

..........contd...
Now let's reflect for a moment on the 1985 ‘Labour Gay Rights Manifesto’ It is a direct threat to traditional family life and the welfare of our children for it states:-
‘'Children grow up under the power of their parents. As children, any behaviour which is obviously sexual in adult terms is repressed… A socialist society would supersede the family household… Gay people and children should have the right to live together… Children and young people should have the right to determine their own sexual lives… Marriage should be disestablished… Women need access to free contraception and abortion facilities; this applies just as much to young women as to 'adults.' Children should be able to divorce their parents… It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent.'

At an education conference homosexual Stephen Twigg MP, then labour Schools Minister, stated it is '...not enough' for schools merely to promote homosexuality. They are admonished to a 'celebration of diversity encouraging differences of sexual orientation...' This is a major shift of extreme importance because it truly exposes the gay agenda that wants to encourage homosexuality in our children. Another means of ‘encouraging differences of sexual orientation.’ Young school children will be taught the graphic and sordid details of queer sex and be involved in role playing in pretend gay families.

A Government quango, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, thinks that children as young as five should be taught about homosexual lifestyles and divorce. Parents need to respond to this creeping pressure if they are to protect their children. Children in local authority care or with same-sex parents will not be preserved from this influence. Moreover, then came a demand in 2006 from the National Union of Teachers that children as young as three should have lessons in homosexuality.

As one celebrated gay Canadian put

Blair continues to promote satanic "politically correct" nonsense along with police state IDs, spy cams and the like, all the while selling peerage titles. The man has no shame. He needs to leave public life as soon as possible. The public were fools to have followed him in the first place and every day we see more and more of the mess that he has/is creating.

Stirling

The real question here is not about should gay couples be allowed to adopt the only important thing is that whoever adopts should be vetted carefully and be able to provide a secure,safe enviroment providing much needed love and attention to the child.Peoples sexual preferences for men or women do not come into it.
As for the Catholic church or any other church for that matter being annoyed,well all i can say is "people that live in glass houses should not throw stones".
In the past and also recent history the Catholic church and a few of it's "employees" have shown bad judgement here are a few.

1.Archbishop Malingo gets married,yes thats right got married, repented was forgiven and then decided he wanted to be married anyway.
2.Last year in Italy and priest refused a funeral service in church for a man,why? Murderer,rapist,criminal............no the man had got a divorce years ago so he was denied a funeral in his home town. (the priest of the town had to be given police protection)
3.Also in Italy 2005 a priest admits to sexually abusing children over a period of 12 years and what happens.Jail for life,at least 10 years maybe?payment made to the victims?
No. he is moved by the church to another country with the view to resolve his problems.
Now storys like this are all too common nowadays in every type of religion sad but true.
The reason i remarked on this story is because my step-brother was raised by my mother and her partner (yes shock horror another woman) and has grown into a responsible adult how is married with kids and works as a policeman.
Once again it does not matter what sex or their preferences are adopting couples need to be able to provide security,safety,love and attention.

Rant Over.

A)- When I throw something out of my fridge because it is past its best. I am exercising discrimination.

B)- Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50)
5. - (1) For the purposes of this Part, an employer discriminates against a disabled person if-
(a) for a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability, he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and
(b) he cannot show that the treatment in question is justified.

C)- When I ask for a coffee rather than a tea, I am exercising discrimination.

‘nuff said. “Discrimination” can be good (A), can be bad (B), can be neutral (C).

If children prefer, other things being equal, to be brought up by a male and a female married to each other, they are exercising discrimination. Good?, bad?, neutral?

To say, “I am against discrimination,” sounds fine, but of course as soon as one spells it out as “I am against unjust discrimination” , then the question is rightly raised, “What is unjust discrimination?”

We certainly live in “interesting times” – in so many ways worse than the Weimar Republic in Germany where genuine liberals were so weak that the only question was whether Nazis or Communists would take over (the Nazis took over because of pro-Nazi judges sending Communists to jail for a year, Nazis for a week, after battles to control the streets and the beerhalls.)

I always wonder who the 'Catholics" are? Define this group? Is it the Catholic priests, the ruling segment, or is it peopLe who describe themselves as Catholics? And what does the latter group do? Italy and Spain have the lowest birth rates in Europe, its been down at about 1.3/1.4 per woman for about twenty years now. Here its still 1.75p.w. and in the Scandinavian countries is higher, around 1.9p.w. So much for the liberated godless Swedes. Even Ireland's birthrate has dropped like a stone, its gone down from over 3 to 2 in a very short time. So the countries which have lots of Catholics all use lots of birth control, that's against Catholic teaching, just like being gay. So why pay attention to the 'Catholics', a few priests, not many votes there or people who describe themselves as Catholic, but ignore Church teaching in their own lives. Do they really go into the ballot box and vote to control other people's lives after that? All you journalists, politicians out there, define "Catholics' when you talk about them.

All statistics can be found on the Eurostat website

86: How predictable the cries of "homophobia". It's nothing of the sort, and BTW don't accuse me of being religious because I'm not in the slightest. I'm an atheist and I don't normally have a lot of time for the Catholic church, but in this case I see their views being trampled on by a small minority aided and abetted by those in power. It is quite wrong to persecute homosexuals, but suggesting that it is not in the best interests of a child to be brought up by 2 homosexual men is another matter. You are entitled to your twisted little opinion and I am entitled to disagree. Unfortunately what is occurring here is the immoveable force meeting the irresistible object. Oh, and before you start claiming homosexuality is normal, look up the definition of normal. It suggests "adhering to the norm". Although you may interpret that phrase differently I suppose....

de bono, #35, thank you for posting this. I know from experience that practically NOBODY will offer an intelligent response to your type of post. Reality is too much for a lot of people to deal with.

Sometimes I post this exposé into the tactics used by the homosexual lobby’s PR people http://www.gayconspiracy.co.uk/page6.html and that gets no response either.

People must love the thought that they have been manipulated to such a degree.

The brainwashing of the masses to accept homosexual acts as normal started thus:

“The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal. “

And it moved on from there to where we are today, and it won’t end until the likes of Peter Tatchell get their way and everyone is engaging in homosexual acts. Look at his website for proof – http://www.petertatchell.net/queer%20theory/idealism.htm Scroll to the foot of the page, where he writes,

“To echo the sentiments of the early gay liberationists: our ultimate goal must be a sexual revolution to enable everyone to share the joy of same-sex desire and love.” (notice how "everyone" is underlined.)

These are the perverts who are telling us we cannot discriminate. It is all our right, indeed DUTY to discriminate against that which is WRONG.

I think the RC church may be correct in opposing children being brought up in a single sex family environment.
It does seem strange though that this practice is opposed by a childless, single - sex organisation, who abstain from procreative activity.
It should be remembered that these objections are not based on child welfare, but religious dogma. ie the RC abhorrence of homosexuality.
If it were a matter of child welfare, they would perhaps be more understanding, in permitting the use of contraception, and help prevent unborn children from contracting AIDs.
They will not let an ounce of humanity get in the way of a millenium of dogma.

Dogma wi a bone

#149

Squeal all you like, the facts speak for themselves.

I just love the way you pick up on the opinion of Camille Paglia without acknowledging the other facts, you claim that any reasoning in my argument is destroyed by the use of the word queer,

I myself have heard many gays use this word.

Then you rave on calling me nasty and twisted because you know that what I write is the truth and you yourself can see that.

I have not lowered myself to mud slinging, but you have and this only shows the weakness and transparency of your argument.

#149

P.S I'm not the one with the chocolate fingers!

I assume you were talking about a previous posting on another article when someone else said they had got biscuits and chocolate fingers while donating blood.

Little wonder fewer people are using their vote.

The views of children are being disregarded.
Their welfare must come first and this legislation ensures that that will stop, so far as the Catholic Church involvement is concerned.
Because of that the government is willing to sacrifice the welfare of the children.

No one has the right to assume children placed in a homosexual parenting "family" arrangement will not be adversely affected.
Has anyone asked the children their thoughts on this?
The legislation is a disgrace.

Finnking #28 says "ALL religious groups are oppressive, it's in thier nature",

Who's the bigot now?

People must realise what the REAL agenda is here. The Government that wants to suck out your conscience and that lords over the killing of hundreds of thousands in immoral and unjustified wars, that lies constantly and makes sure most public services are underfunded, is the same one that cares so much about the “gay community” that we must all sacrifice our freedom of conscience?

No they do not care about you or I, they are following a globalist agenda of setting up a control grid. Think about it, the same attitudes are being promoted all over the Western World. Historically, when “anything goes” in society, then that society goes – out the window, and into the hands of an invader. In this case, it is the globalists who are waging this war against us by dumbing us down (via the media they control), attacking the family unit they fear so much, filling us with poison via the food, water and air, and now legislating against solid Christian values and common sense.

Lex Lugar #77 – top point. Not just masons, all manner of secret society devil-worshippers, like Blair and his channelling of light and new age stuff.

David Blunt #114, I agree. The powers that be use sex in all its ungodly forms to distract souls from the truth.

P.S. I am a Christian, not a Catholic and I could argue all day about doctrine, but on this issue, where children and religious people are being made political pawns for a 2% minority and to satisfy an overall devilish agenda of control, then we must all fight this evil being foisted on us. Not the homosexuals themselves (they have enough problems and a truly caring Government would allow us to offer them help without fear of their agenda), but these traitors that we laughingly think of as our elected representatives.

Section 28 was, on balance, a good thing which protected normally disposed children from psychological abuse in school, where it is indeed utterly inappropriate to promote same sex relationships. This most certainly does happen in at least some schools, now that it is legal to do so. I am glad that I was never exposed to any such material when I was a child or teenager.
If it was natural for same sex couples to have children, they would not need to adopt children, who are surely in difficult enough circumstances anyway. Even although it is to be assumed that most same sex couples would not abuse an adopted child physically, they could not avoid doing so psychologically, just by example. Adoption is supposedly based exclusively on the best interests of the child, not on those of the parents, which would exclude same sex couples. The only possible exceptions would be children who are themselves homosexual to start with, and how possible is it for that to be established at such a young age? Even if it is possible, religious organisations should still not be involved, even in these cases.
It is an utterly repugnant outrage to force any religious adoption agency to co-operate with any adoption by a same sex couple. Probably the next development will be that same sex couples will be legally entitled to be married by ministers, vicars and priests etc. in churches etc., and that anyone refusing to co-operate will be jailed. This will not work as many have preferred to be burnt to death than compromise on their religious beliefs. Core Christian belief is being discriminated against, thus breaking anti religious discrimination policies. If Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ruth Kelly were all such good christians they would not be attacking their own churches in this manner.

Isn't it astonishing that these churches (yes, shock-horror all of them) have so much say in our lives when there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to substantiate what they teach.

Or is there?

Prove me wrong.

#159 Stewart C

I see you've grasped it, unlike so many others who just let there mouths run.

I think the really interesting point in this debate centres around the combining of anti-religious and pro-gay world-views. If you don't believe in a Creator (i.e. you are not religious) then you must believe the prevailing science view of the Big Bang and Evolution (to develop new species). But this clearly implies that homosexuality is an abberation that has no functional advantage. These don't seem to me to be compatible views of the world. I'd be interested to know how homosexuals justify a purely naturalistic view of life on Earth.

is ruth sitting comfortably ?

Why don't the militant homosexuals, who now appear to run "Great Britain," just cut to the chase and tell us in too what age they want the age of sexual consent reduced?

That is a battle worth fighting.

The new testament preaches tolerance and understanding for others. It's basic message is that we should treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves.

Why then should the Catholic church attempt to practise discrimination against a minority in the community? Who do they really believe they represent, most Scots whether Catholic or not will be appalled to see the church line up with fascists and bigots.

161----
To, well, 'state the obvious', the issue is not whether Christianity is right or wrong, but whether those who do believe in it are to be disrespected and thus victimised in their own organisations. If homosexuals don't like the teachings of the mainstream churches they should go and form their own, if they want one, and leave heterosexual Christians alone.

There was a law in Germany that required Jews to wear a yellow star. Who now would condemn those who objected to this?
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent.
There is an election in May this year where individuals can make a difference. Take their declared Party affiliation as a guide but find out your candidate's opinions on this and other subjects which are important to you and vote accordingly. Do the same in 2008 or whenever the General election is. This is the only way to clear out those who are destroying the freedoms we in this country take for granted - the freedoms our fathers and grandfathers had to go to war to preserve.

My personal opinion is that homosexuals should be pitied, not encouraged. Those who try to make homosexuality compulsory, and who have worked their way into government to achieve this need to be defeated. I will be voting accordingly in May and later. I urge you to do the same.

166 ---
The New Testament, just like the old, condemns homosexuality. Period. It might be right, or it might be wrong, but if you think its wrong then you obviously are not a Christian, and you have no business interfering with the Christian churches. The Christian churches do not stop people living homosexual lifestyles. They just CANNOT be involved with what their religion condemns as sin. Otherwise, they have no religion.

Why don't the militant homosexuals set up their own adoption service, instead of telling UK religious groups how to run their adoption organisations?
With the support they seem to have at the heart of government this should not be a problem!

What next,

Should the church be accused of discrimination against thieves and murderers because the bible says thou shall not steal and thou shal not kill.

168: Re your last paragraph - there used to be a joke along these lines, but it does seem that for whatever reason, it's coming true. And if anyone says "hang on a minute", they're immediately buried in accusations of "homophobia" and bigotry. You're not allowed to consider homosexuality as less than desirable or a birth defect, or else the government will come round and cart you off for "diversity training" and a course of political correcteness.

That Cankers chappie further up the page is an odious wee turd, isn't he (or she)?

#30: "It is a legal nonsense to pass laws forcing equality upon unequals: apples are just not pears. Homos & heteros are NOT equal when it comes to child bearing and rearing."

Er... this is exactly the same type of 'argument' made about the emancipation of blacks (they were thought to be 'not equal') and about suffrage for women (not equal to men). I daresay there are still those who believe these things - well, we cannot change that, and indeed, we are free to believe what we want. But what we can't do, and what the legislation will prevent, is to put those beliefs into action, i.e. to deny people goods, services, protection, rights or to discriminate against them because of their sexuality.

#55: "The bottom line here (no pun intended) is that unless you consider homosexual couples to be normal (and by statistical definition they aren't), by allowing them to adopt, you are putting a child in an abnormal situation, one which is sadly likely to increse their chances of being bullied."

Pun? I don't get it...ah! Of course! Straight men's obsession with anal sex, again!
By statistical definition, white people aren't normal, nor are blue-eyed people. Will we stop allowing them to adopt too?
The problem of bullying is not exclusive to gay parents; think harder...

#98: "so you think its correct that people should be legislated into appreciating that youre capable of raising a family? Wouldnt it be better to change attitudes by showing them your capable rather than having the government fight your battles for you?"

So you think this is how it works? Those in any minority group - blacks, disabled people, children - have to prove themselves before expecting protection from the government? I am glad you aren't in charge. Apart from anything else, plenty of children have been and are being raised by same-sex couples, successfully. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and d

I'm in no way religious and consider it to be a plague on society......... I'm also in no way homophobic and do not believe in discrimination on sexual, religious, racial or any indeed any other grounds.

However - common sense tells me that allowing same sex couples to adopt children just ain't acceptable.. It's taking political correctness that one step too far and could actually cause a very unfortunate backlash.

Abuse of adopted children is not unheard of amongst standard families but just watch the reaction when the first incident occurs in a same sex family.. I think the Govt is taking a huge and completely unneccesary risk.

170 and 171 both make excellent points, although I believe that even secular adoption for same sex couples is against the best interests of the child, which should come first. It would only be conceivable where the child was itself homosexual already, and even then churches should not be involved.

163 is also spot on. If atheists believe in evolution that involves HETEROsexuality.

I also refuse to use the word 'gay' in connection with same sex couples. 'Gay' traditionally meant bright cheerful colourful happy innocence. Now I just cannot use that word any more.

It's simple really. If the RC church wishes to continue its present course, then the government cuts off all funding. Not that it would hurt the richest corporation in the world.

J1 #168, yes, spot on, homosexuals should be pitied, not encouraged, otherwise we are betraying them so badly. I believe they really can be healed.

I have never done this before, but I would urge everyone to contact their MP in the next day or two and firmly, but politely state the need to protect our liberty, because this is incredible. I go further and object to the whole notion of “rights” in this area, especially where children are involved. As CPM, Cheshire (#175) says, children are not goods and services.

Nemesis #176, I agree about the word “gay”. It was adopted for the very reason of making the homosexual appear unthreatening to normal people and an irrelevance to society. Classic brainwashing.

173 --- The fact, however much you hate it, is that if homosexual relationships were of equal worth when it came to child bearing and rearing, homosexual intercourse would result in pregnancy. Its because it doesn't that homosexuals want to adopt the children of heterosexuals, presumably without the agreement of these natural biological parents.
Now much as I hate the idea of any agency offering a child up for adoption by a same sex couple, the thought of Christian organisations becoming involved in this is infinitely more serious and grave.

Blair's legacy is now so dubious he would rather be remembered for anything, other than Iraq.

I'd like to know where this "funding" issue came from.

Does anyone know how much Catholic agencies get from the government and how that compares to other agencies doing similar work? I'd hazard a guess it was less but since it seems to be recognised they work with harder children and generally do better work it may be more.

Those who seem to be intent on stopping the work these agencies do, can you explain whether or not you believe this will benefit children?

#173 maestra

I have lost count of the number of times people have likened discrimination against gays to discrimination against black people or any other type of racism.

The point you are forgetting is that black people are born black and white people are born white, this is rooted in genetics. People are not born gay, it is a lifestyle choice.

How disappointing to still hear so many bigoted and unbelievably ignorant viewpoints about homosexuality in the 21st century.

As a gay man who struggled against coming out for so long, was brought up in a very strict catholic family with a highly prejudiced view of gay people, i can assure anyone on here who says that being gay is a choice. Believe me, if i had a choice when I was young, I would never have chosen to disappoint my family by eventually coming out.

However, ten years on and I can firmly say that I am proud of who I am. And believe me that doesn't mean to say I am a 'militant' homosexual who wants everyone to be gay - far from it, life would be very dull indeed if everyone was the same.

The fact is, that we are all different in some ways, whetehr it be race, colour, sexual orientation, gender, black hair, blonde hair - all of which comes down to genetic make up. When people try to discriminate against that, then that should be condemned.

On the gay adoption/catholic church argument, I firmly believe that no religious organisation should be involved in the adoption of children in the UK, be it catholic, protestant or muslim. All prospective adoptive parents have to go through a rigorous application process and only after that has been completed, should anyone say that a couple is not suitable.

There is already too much hate in the world.
Respect Thy Neighbour!

Have you ever accidently walked in on your parents banging away ? Traumatises you a wee bit, imagine if they were same sex.....................lol !

oh and by the way, my family, who are all devout Catholics learned to accept me for who I was.

For all those people on here condemning homosexuality, just think that your son/daughter/neice/nephew/grandson/ granddaughter could well be growing up gay, scared out of their minds about what you and the rest of their family will react.

Just think about what your bigoted views are doing to them and their heads. Now that is psychological abuse...

#182, and I've lost count of the number of times ill informed people contrary to all reliable research blithely declare that homosexuals supposedly choose a "lifestyle" relationship with someone of the same sex thereby suggesting that heterosexual sex is therefore also a lifestyle choice based not upon sexual attraction but upon a whim of the moment, somewhat like buying a fashionable pair of shoes. The so-called gay 'lifestyle choice' unleashes a bucketload of opprobrium upon themselves. Of course gay people are born gay, why would they choose a lifestyle that would result in their being subjected to discrimination and condemnation? And of course straight people are born straight - why else would they subject themselves to the pain of childbirth coupled with the expensive burden of raising children?

#183 Edinlad78

Are you saying then that people are born gay and that homosexuality is rooted in a persons genes?

I feel for you regarding the confusion you must have gone through in your life, but in 2005 a research team at the University of Illinois screened the entire human genome system. Led by Dr. Brian Mustanski, he concluded, 'Sexual orientation is a complex trait. There is no one "gay" gene.' Homosexual propaganda consistently ignores such scientific evidence.

More telling, an Australian study of identical twins in 2000 found only 20% male homosexual and 24% female homosexual had a gay twin. Yet if genes determine sexual orientation, the figure should be 100% because importantly, identical twins have identical genes.

So, if the condition is not biologically determined, it has to be embraced as a life-choice

Anyway, bit busy now so I will have to leave it there.

I still stand by what I have said in my #140 & 141 postings.

Edinlad7 #183, "How disappointing to still hear so many bigoted and unbelievably ignorant viewpoints about homosexuality in the 21st century"

What I see mainly are well-constructed points of view, firmly grounded in scripture, science, common sense, etc. and the realisation that there is a rampant agenda against people of conscience and decency.

Sadly, you seem to be programmed to believe that everyone who disagrees with your lifestyle somehow hates you. I am not a shrink and I don’t know you, so I won’t hazard a guess as to why that is, but it seems a very common condition.

I humbly suggest you look through this website, and I do so out of love and concern http://narth.com/

#182: "I have lost count of the number of times people have likened discrimination against gays to discrimination against black people or any other type of racism.
The point you are forgetting is that black people are born black and white people are born white, this is rooted in genetics. People are not born gay, it is a lifestyle choice."

With respect, you are wrong. People are, indeed, born gay.

'Lifestyle' is something else, something different from being gay or straight. Think on: in a world as full of aversion, ignorance, misunderstanding, intolerance, and just plain prejudice towards gay people (just look at the posts on this thread!), why would anyone 'choose' to be gay?

So many people, men and women, have gotten together with opposite sex partners, married, had children, even; but realized they were living a lie, because they are gay.

Clearly, in this society, the 'benefits' of being straight in terms of acceptance, tolerance, respectability, visibility, protection by the law, etc, far outweigh being gay, so why would anyone who didn't have to 'decide' to be gay? It just doesn't make sense...

I think you need to meet more real people who are gay, not just pictures of them painted in media.

#184: "Have you ever accidently walked in on your parents banging away ? Traumatises you a wee bit, imagine if they were same sex.....................lol !"

Your point is?

Thanks, Em, for those posts, they are most valuable and the sort of post I was referring to in my previous comment.

#189: "Sadly, you seem to be programmed to believe that everyone who disagrees with your lifestyle somehow hates you. "

Again with the lifestyle!

Strikes me that we shouldn't be asking about whether this is a good or a bad piece of legislation or even whether a special-interest religious group should be exempt to any law of the land (of course they shouldn't), but why the heck is there such a thing as a *Catholic* adoption society anyway! NM

everyone can reel off studies or statistics to back up their argument...

If gay people aren't born gay, why on earth do we have gay animals when their brain functions do not enable it to have that "choice"???

Thankfully the Catholic Church can not control the animal kingdom!!!

See link below, if you do not believe me...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-2527347_1,00.html

Sir- Socialists trying to impose anti-religious
thinking have sick minds. It is commonly
accepted that Stalin´s and Hitler´s are dead
and buried, or aren´t they? It will be intressting
to observe the islamic steamroller in a not
very distant future take care of Blair´s and Brown´s.

I suppose that many people are arguing Edinlad78 that the animals give into their urges/instinct and have no choice whereas humans can choose not to give into urges and do have a choice.

It's not a particulalry anologuous argument re: animal kingdom v humans.

Our homosexual friends should ignore the rantings of these religious nuts

Here's one of their own.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

183 ---- 'I firmly believe that no religious organisation should be involved in the adoption of children in the UK, be it catholic, protestant or muslim.'

This is discrimination against people with religious beliefs, which breaks the government's own agenda, just like it does itself...Religious people have not picked this dispute, SOME HOMOSEXUALS AND THE GOVERNMENT HAVE.
The fact is, the left has always detested religion, just like anything else which involves the worship of something other than the state. Of course, the left would all love to remove religion from everything to do with adoption, children and people generally, and ultimately end it altogether. People could then have as much sex as they liked, with as many different people of whatever sex and whatever age they liked, they could attack, murder and rob (with all the help they wanted from the state). But the fact is, many people are as naturally religious as you claim to be naturally homosexual. I am not a catholic, but the catholic adoption agencies do great work and good for them. Moreover, it cannot be natural for a child to be brought up by people in a same sex relationship, when homosexual intercourse never produces children. These adopted children are victims of psychological abuse, if of nothing else. Furthermore, same sex ceremonies and celebrations have no place in any genuinely Christian building and / or with any genuinely Christian personnel. The only way they could have, is if homosexuals set up their own churches. They could call such churches Christian if they liked, but that would go against the sacred text they supposedly referred to.
The vast heterosexual majority should tolerate homosexuality, but not allow itself to become compromised in the process.

This has been turned into a Faith argument, when it is in all truth a common sense argument.
It is generally agreed, as it should be, that the welfare of the child is paramount.
How can any sane person wish or indeed insist, that a child should be placed and brought up in a same sex situation.however caring the chosen couple may be?
It really is beyond belief.

Why has my comment at no146 been removed? I didn't swear, wasn't offensive or broke the law. So much for freedom of speech! Obviously the gays didn't like my comment and reported it as unsuitable.

I find myself strangely in agreement with the church
it must be the exception which proves the rule.
I think that now we have gone far enough down the road of anti discrimination where we now write deliberate discrimination into law
Vis a vis this adoption farce for one, I do not agree with the churches stance on homosexuality in general but I feel that the homosexual community now has enough
support legislation and understanding thet we need go no further down this road, Children need a balanced upbringing from a member of each sex being the ideal.
It is not always possible, but should they have same sex parenting foisted on them when they are not in a position to accept or decline. Will these kids, thank
society when they grow up.
Discrimination in law against smokers
discrimination in law with negative discrimination in the work place.

It's time to give up and let the music take the stress out of our lives. Try listening to

http://www.offshoremusicradio.com

It's easier than argueing.

Once again one of my postings critical of the Church of Rome has been removed and I see that many others have also been removed. Are they, too, critical of the RCC?

It would seem that fervent and fevered Catholics are having critical postings removed OR the thought police from the Catholic hierarchy in Scotland have spies that will weed out anything that is critical of "holy mother church".

This is a clear infringement of freedom of speech and also a betrayal of the agreement of separation of church and state in Great Britain.

Is there nothing that can be done to stop the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland from wielding so much power when it is in the minority yet seems to think it speaks for the majority of all religions.

This is farcical and dangerous because it seems to me that the present RCC under Benedict XVI will stop at nothing to put forward its agenda.

Individual beliefs aside, nobody’s above the law and the law of the land is that (amongst other things) you cannot discriminate because of sexual orientation. If the RC’s want to carry on discriminating then let them go ahead; lobby government and start legal proceedings to change that law… although I don’t fancy their chances of success since most people must see that the UK’s anti-discrimination laws are synonymous with being the modern, civilised society that we are today.

much more fun on the forum yesterday, but since this story broke the hootman servers must be approaching meltdown as it has generated 0000's of posts in the last week, just as well Pax Verbscam hasnt made the forum today to spew his sectarian filth on everyone. But i see the same posters on every debate about this story, why can't we all just get a bong :-).
There is a simple solution here, run the adoption agencies & say they dont discriminate against gay couples, they can always find a reason as to why there are more deserving people to adopt, (i doubt many gay couples would approach the RC church as it's common knowledge about there homophobic stance). I also read that the people running the adoption services aren't the ones forcing the issue, but the RC Bishops & Cardinals are & making this a debate about morality. No group in society can opt out of laws they dont like, it sets a disturbing precedent.

197, Dave from Barra, says: " I suppose that many people are arguing that the animals give into their urges/instinct and have no choice whereas humans can choose not to give into urges and do have a choice.

Actually far from it, I have copied an extract below which is quite revealing given the gay adoption row... :-) link to the full article below...

"As with humans, the homosexual partnerships of some animals are often for life, not fleeting dalliances. Male flamingoes, swans and other birds will sometimes have one-night stands with females to produce eggs, then chase off the mother and rear the offspring with another male."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-2527347_1,00.html

Athiest, it is about BOTH the welfare of the child being paramount which you are absolutely correct about AND respect for genuinely religious people in their own organisations. I never once said whether Christianity was right or not, except where I definitely do agree with Christians and everyone else who say that same sex adoption is inevitably bad for any child, unless it can be established that they are already homosexual. Homosexuals sometimes have sad experiences with their own families, even although they are their own genetic kin. Now the same thing applies in reverse, but more severely, as MOST of the children adopted by same sex couples, will be of the opposite orientation. If, as homosexuals insist, straight kids would remain straight in such situations, they would not even share the same orientation, never mind a close genetic relationship with their guardians. However 'understanding' everyone was, some kids would be bound to develop psychological issues in such a situation, over and above the ones they would have anyway about not having their real parents. The point cannot be repeated too often, that if it was natural for same sex couples to have children adoption would not be the only means of getting them for same sex couples. If anti-God atheists believe in evolution, that depends on heterosexuality.

I applaud the UK for this measure to reduce bigotry against people for their sexual orientation. I hope my country will follow suit and I am sure that it will eventually... but probably later rather than sooner. It is difficult to change peoples' way of thinking but it has worked to lessen racial bigotry to have laws that forbid it. It doesn't affect the current generation so much as it does the next one. But gradually the world gets better.
Thank you UK for taking the lead for the rest of us to follow.

Ok Edinlad78. All homosexuals are all animals. Is that what we are to assume?

Don't cheapen your argument, lay off the animal banter.

I know four same sex couples all female and none of them are remotely interested in adopting. These couples are in their 25-30's in long term relationships.
Out of interest, how many same sex couples a year would be looking to adopt and would the majority of same sex couples adopting be male or female?

The law is the law.Either the RCC have respect for the law or they dont.

Should they act outwith the laws of the lands then they will be dealt with accordingly.

Simple really!

203) A trifle paranoid there, 6 or 7 removals out of 208
isn't a lot for such an emotive subject.

Chill out man and have a listen to

http://www.offshoremusicradio.com

#207
The volume of child abuse inflicted by heterosexuals on infants is beyond belief.

And what about heterosexual impotents?

Should they be ousted from adoption because they cannot fulfil their role in evolution?

ARTICLE 9
FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom 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 and 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 in the interests of public safety, for the
protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of
the rights and freedoms of others.

Whether Article 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees the right of
employees in a faith-based adoption agency to continue to act in
accordance with their consciences will no doubt,in due course,be tested
in Court.

The Government's refusal to allow a Free Vote in Parliament on the
matter,however, is a clear breach of the principle of Democracy which
will make it impossible for me and, I am sure,many other lifelong
Labour voters to continue to be so.

If on the scale of things, the percentage of same sex couples wanting to adopt is so small then why would the government need to interfere with the RC adoption agencies. Same sex couples can use other adoption agencies surely.

Nemesis.I find myself agreeing with most of what you have to say, except your comments about the Left, a good many of them originated in the Chapels.
No it is the woolly headed liberals of all Parties that we should be wary of.

#215 Supposing no same sex couples were waiting to adopt the issue is still the same... illegal discrimination by the church because of sexual orientation.

216) That is blatantly discriminatory against woolly headed liberals.

215 - the government wants to 'interfere' with 'Catholic' adoption agencies because they - or rather tha taxpayer- pays for them.

If Catholic adoption agencies want to apply tneir own morality to the services they provide then fine, I don't object to that and neither does the government. But let them pay for it themselves and stop expecting the taxpayer to prop them and their medieval ideology up.

'No group in society can opt out of laws they dont like, it sets a disturbing precedent.'

If this ridiculous law will not allow exceptions it should not exist, as it breaks the anti-religious discrimination agenda.
IF there is no middle ground, then the choice is between letting homosexuals set up their own religious organisations on the one hand, or destroying all genuine christian churches on the other. Which is more reasonable?
If churches refusing to perform homosexual 'marriage' ceremonies are persecuted into oblivion, then all genuinely religious marriage will end, as the only people who could confer what the religious believe to be divine blessing will be in jail. Guess we might all have to get ourselves locked up just to be married then.
Homosexuals already have their civil partnerships which I don't mind, they are already very well protected, and rightly so, from hate crime, many of them already have great jobs which is fine. They could set up their own churches if they wanted to and I wouldn't care. They can even adopt children already, which is a step to far. They have no need for this ridiculous anti-discrimination law, the real aim of which is to attack Christians, whilst the government pretends to oppose religious discrimination.
There are not even enough Christians left for them to be any bother to homosexuals anyway, and the remaining ones do not want to be anyway. They just want to be left alone.
In trying to destroy the already ailing Christianity, this vile left wing government could well be giving it the very kiss of life it needs. The Romans could not destroy Christianity though they fed Christians to the lions. Not even Stalin and his successors could destroy Christianity, either in the Soviet Union or in Poland, where the church actually thrived under persecution. If you want to destroy Christianity, the very last thing you should do is persecute its followers, because doing so will provoke the

Someone said,"This is turning into a faith matter."

That is because it IS a faith matter.

The Catholic young mother wishes her child to have a Catholic upbringing.That is why she puts her child in trust, into their care.

The other adoption agencies have a different ethos ,so can place children in line with those parents wishes.

If is as stated the Catholic press will be criminalised by refusing to print gay pride march dates and venues the same hold true for Muslim press.

I would like to see the first such add being printed in a muslim paper .......................

214. Centurion2, Glasgow

If someone is acting as guardian of a child then they are duty bound to act in a way that puts the interests of the child first.

The rights of the child take precedence over the rights of the adopter, which is why the government's stance is flawed and illegal. Once again they haven't thought it through.

The current situation will continue; any adoption agency will continue to have the right to discriminate in favour of the child and to discriminate against the adopter.

Blair and Kelly are no strangers to illegality; they are once again trying to force their ideas on others, regardless of the law.

I obviously oppose criminalising homosexuality, and particularly abhor societies that stone those practicing it to death, which is an utterly evil response. Nevertheless, ANYONE who opposes religious marriage for same sex couples and letting them adopt kids, particularly through a religious agency, is entirely justified in that opposition. That obviously excludes all physical violence.

Anthing that requires a license is regulated by the government. If when you choose to marry, and must purchase a license, can you be charged with discrimination if you want to marry someone from the opposite sex?
The effect of antidiscrimination regulation is massive.

172 Alastair: Glad to have someone of your brilliance aboard i.e. someone who agrees with me. Don't agree completely about Cankers - he or she is no worse than any of the other ranters and ravers who shout 'homophobia' at the drop of a 'queer'.
I've worked with homosexuals before now who were no worse than anyone else in many ways. The difference was, they did not push their homosexuality down everyone's throats. In the context of their jobs, for example, it wasn't an issue. It IS an issue where children are concerned, or my right - don't you hate that word, the way it is used these days? - to my opinion and beliefs.

178 Stewart: I'm with you all the way. The pity is that vulnerable people on the borders of homosexuality can be dragged in to this morass by the 'gay' - what abuse of a word - propagandists. Children are vulnerable and need protection from this kind of thing. It's not just in politics that the attack on children is happening - take a look at the materials approved for use in sex education in schools.

205 DDMC: "No group in society can opt out of laws they dont like, it sets a disturbing precedent."
Would you include 1930s anti-nazi Germans in this? A disturbing precedent indeed. See my post at 168.

The solution lies in voting out those who are establishing Quintin Hogg's 'elective dictatorship'. Take a good hard look at the candidates on ofer in May and thereafter, and vote accordingly.

#212 Arthur.

Thanks for your observation but I am taking the stance of a "worse case" scenario.

If the present trend persists and is not stopped in its tracks the Roman Catholic Church will try to revive Scotland into a medieval Catholic fiefdom submissive to Rome.

Perhaps I am overstating it a bit but the RCC is certainly persistent in getting its "God-given" agenda foisted on Scotland.

I believe in God but I would not presume to inflict my High Anglican views and practices on anyone.

That requires a humility and lack of arrogance that the Roman Catholic church currently lacks.

media 211
surely the point is not the law of the land but freedom of conscience. didn't Britain go thro' this before

Do you not think this may have a psychological impact on the kids, who may grow up resenting their circumstances, eg Not only was I not brought up by my own parents but when I was I adopted why did I have to get two mums or two dads. Not only will they feel different from the majority of kids because they are adopted but they have same sex parents. Also lets face it kids can be very cruel when growing up, it doesn't take a genius to foresee a spot of bullying.

perhaps now the religous institutions accross the globe will realise that they are not above the law.
Welcome to 2007 and tolerance-the thing that the RC church always want to claim the moral high ground on.

Its perfectly true that many of the heterosexuals who adopt, have NO natural means of conceiving. However, heterosexual relationships normally produce children at some point. The opposite applies to homosexuals who are fertile. They could have children as well as anyone else, if they wanted them badly enough, by having strictly instrumental heterosexual relationships. When they are only prepared to have homosexual relationships which never produce children, they should not be given the children of someone else who may, and in the case of those parents giving their children to catholic adoption agencies, definitely will oppose their child being handed over to a same sex couple.
An adopted child cannot tell by looking at their guardians whether they are fertile or not, but its perfectly obvious whether they are of the same or opposite sexes.
In response to another poster, very few people in their twenties could have been in a relationship long enough for it to be described as long term. The situation cannot be that different for those in their early thirties.

#230 You condone bullying? You think we should have laws that are acceptable to bullies?

one is 12/13 years and I'd say that was fairly long term by most standards today

228 --- I am not Catholic but I support the Catholic Church and 'Rome' all the way on this issue, and all other outraged religions too. Scotland is becoming less, not more religious, and even when it was religious a century ago, we were nowhere near medieval. We were then part of the 'Workshop of the World'. This has changed, the more we have abandoned religion. But like I say, as Christianity has historically thrived on persecution, this attack on Christianity could well be counterproductive and actually HELP real Christianity make a resurgance.

Adoption is meant to be what is best for the child, this discussion is not what is best for the child but the rights of two different groups of adults and what they believe.
Some agencies have decided that a child of one colour of skin cannot be adopted by a adults of another skin colour.
No one should be discriminated against yet if you are over a certain age then you cannot adopt.
Discrimination happens in adoption all the time and a blind eye is turned to it.
I will say it again this has nothing to do with what is in the child's best interest this is about the rights of adults.

Sorry did I use the word bully in a statement, so you feel the need to question if I am one or condone it. Try reading it again.

The bullies are those in the government and the militant faction of the homosexual community, who are seeking to obliterate Christianity.

Yes 12/13 years may indeed be amazingly long for a relationship, BY AS YOU SAY THE STANDARDS OF TODAY. These are the corrupt standards I object to. A few decades ago, when heterosexual marriage (the only kind) was for life, a relationship would need to be at least two decades old before it could qualify as long term.

Not that I wish to adopt, having brought up my own children, but if we want rid of discrimination then I find myself in a position where my wife and I can not adopt
even though we are a heterosexual married couple.
We would not be allowed to because we are to old at
56 and 46, and we both smoke.
Are we not being discriminated against on two counts?
Yet more examples of discrimination being written into the law. I suppose gay couples will be subject to the age and smoking regs. as well but surely it is more important to get children adopted by heterosexual couple before catering for a small minority of a minority market anyway. Society gets more and more cock eyed by the day. What injustice
will be heaped upon us tomorrow.

#213

Contrary to the homosexual assertion that heterosexual molestations outnumber those committed by homosexuals, Yale and Harvard-connected psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover states that "careful studies show that pedophilia is far more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals." Satinover adds, "The greater absolute number of heterosexual cases reflects the fact that heterosexual males outnumber homosexual males by approximately 36 to 1. Heterosexual child molestation cases outnumber homosexual cases by only 11 to 1, implying that pedophilia is more than three times more common among homosexuals."

To suggest all gays have a fixated attraction to male children, or young men, is foolish. However, research repeatedly shows a disproportionate do! Studies show that heterosexuals molest most children generally. Gays are quick to point this out in order to conceal their behaviour. But the facts are against them! Homosexuals, as a defined group, are consistently and disproportionately over represented in male child molestation cases when compared with heterosexuals, as a defined group.

English professor Karla Jay, Ph.D., and well-educated journalist Allen Young, both homosexual activists, conducted the first major survey on homosexuality in America in 1979. Their work is still cited in academic studies and involved over 5,000 homosexuals from all walks of life. Titled "The Gay Report," the study published data on underage sex, disease, gross promiscuity, suicidal tendencies and more.

One cannot help but applaud the honesty of these two homosexuals in publishing the results of their study, which documented that "23 percent of respondents admitted to having had sex with youths aged 13-15, while 19 percent felt positive about sexual activity within this age group." Tragically, 50 percent of the males in their survey experienced their first sexual encounter at age 15 or less.

Ach! Blair's off on the wrong foot again. Half hearted measures. The man just doesn't think things through! If you're going to force one Church to do one thing, ye'll hae to force all Churches to do all things. Can you imagine him saying to the Jews that they cannot stipulate that both parties must be Jewish????
(Or have I missed the point?)

#237 I read it again and yep! you seem to be suggesting that we should do things in a certain way so as not to give the bullies ammunition, instead of tackling the problem of bullying.

Exactly Walter, adoption is supposed to be about the best interests of the child, not the conflicting ones of adults.

Ok... To me the arguments I keep hearing are wrong. We're focusing on the wrong thing. It's not a question of whether Gays should be allowed to adopt or marry, but it's a question of should the government force clergy to go against their faith in order to allow them to do so.
Hear me out. I have lots of friends that are homosexual. Most of them are afraid that because of my background as a minister I will not be able to be their friend and would despise them, however I usually give the same answer to each of them - "I'm a sinner. According to the Word of God and in accordance with the teachings of Jesus the Christ I am a sinner (For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God). I believe that homosexuality is a sin, just as I believe that lusting after someone is a sin and allowing anger to take over in ones life is a sin. If all have sinned then I cannot judge someone harsher as a homosexual than I can myself for thoughts that may enter my mind. But it doesn't change the fact that it is still sin. Can I be friends with a sinner? How can I not be?" But, this is where the issue lies - not in should homosexuals be allowed to marry and adopt children, but should ministers and churches be forced into not only allowing it but endorsing it and functioning in the capacity of actually doing gay marriages and adoptions. It would be, to me, like saying that the government has decided that everyone should have affairs and cheat on their spouse. Regardless of your religious view you have to do it. If I believe that I am accountable for my actions (what I say, do and think), then I condemn myself for participation in something that I know is wrong morally. By that, if I am coerced into doing something by anyone, government or individual, to do something I believe is a sin, I will be held accountable as a party to that sin. Is it right to hold a legal 'gun' to a minister's head and tell him to do what he knows is not right and then le

229. jack astor

The law of the land supports freedom of conscience.

In actual fact, the law of the land is based on Christian principles.

Feriens # 225

You just hate, you have nothing constructive to add, back to Ibrox boy.

To Arthur # 212

THanks for the advice which I seem to recall you gave me before.

Although I have studies classical music and play an instrument, I find this "Offshoremusic.com" site to actually BE stress-relieving although I will not give up the CDs and classical-music stations that I listen to.

In the end, thanks again for the "heads up".

#217 nice point, but it wasn't until 1941 that Jews were forced to wear yellow stars with Juden written on it. At that point Germany wasn't a democracy but in the control of a Dictator. I don't think you can compare laws passed by dictators & laws passed by democratic goverments.

245's got a point, you know. You cannot legislate on belief. Or can you?

Jack Astor:229

Freedom of conscience? I cannot believe you even suggested such a thing.

I am not suggesting that gay adoption should be permitted nor am I suggesting it should not. I am saying that in a secular society religious organisations must adhere to the law.

If you agree with abortion and I do not, does that mean it has to be your way? NO, it means that the government will pass a law either making it legal or illegal and thats that.

Religion is what is making this debate heated. Had the Catholic church accepted the ruling on behalf of its people then everything would be fine. The people would just go along with it. Had some small group of catholic people decided to show their contempt for the decision thereafter, other Catholics would be telling them to support the church. Thats why this entire debacle is farcical.

Its not really abouit anything! Its a hollow stance.

Confront bullying by confronting the bullies in the government and in the militant faction of the homosexual community, who are seeking to obliterate Christian churches whose members only want to be left alone.

240 --- a very interesting post. But send it to our filthy and nauseating government and they would probably feel very inspired.

Sorry, 245, I meant 244

#159
Well stated.
However, clue me in to the reference of Blair's new age stuff and light channelling...

245 bill
seems to me there a conflict coming, then, if it has not already arrived.

sorry that was for #227

What weight in this debate do we give to the wishes of the deceased parents? If the parents had expressed a wish that their children should not be adopted by a gay couple (or parents of a different nationality, creed, colour, region, occupation, whatever) would their wishes be respected?

Where do those Social Services/Adoption Agencies now stand who have refused in the past to allow white parents to adopt black children, on the grounds that it was not in the children's best interests to lose their connection with their culture?

Will the nurture vs nature debate now open? Will there be long-running studies to discover what effect this law will have on the lifestyle choices of children adopted by heterosexual vs gay couples?

250 (You again and once again you make me repeat myself)
If this ridiculous law will not allow exceptions it should not exist, as it will be breaking the government's own anti-religious discrimination agenda.
IF there is no middle ground, then the choice is between letting homosexuals set up their own religious organisations on the one hand, or destroying all genuine christian churches on the other. Which is more reasonable?
If churches refusing to perform homosexual 'marriage' ceremonies are persecuted into oblivion, then all genuinely religious marriage will end, as the only people who could confer what the religious believe to be divine blessing will be in jail. Guess we might all have to get ourselves locked up just to be married then.
Homosexuals already have their civil partnerships which I don't mind, they are already very well protected, and rightly so, from hate crime, many of them already have great jobs which is fine. They could set up their own churches if they wanted to and I wouldn't care. They can even adopt children already, which is a step too far. They have no need for this ridiculous anti-discrimination law, the real aim of which is to attack Christians, whilst the government pretends to oppose religious discrimination.
There are not even enough Christians left for them to be any bother to homosexuals anyway, and the remaining ones do not want to be. They just want to be left alone.
In trying to destroy the already ailing Christian religion, this vile left wing government could well be giving it the very kiss of life it needs. The Romans could not destroy Christianity though they fed Christians to the lions. Not even Stalin and his successors could destroy Christianity, either in the Soviet Union or in Poland, where the church actually thrived under persecution. If you want to destroy Christianity, the very last thing you should do is persecute its followers, because doing so will provoke the opposite effect to t

#244
Classic religious cant-dogmatic and long winded.
A first year student of philosophy would burst your atrocious logic. It is wrong on so many levels.
This is why Europe is, for all intents and purposes, a post-religion society. Organized religion just doesn't make sense and has really helped no one since its invention-or if it ever did, that time has long passed.
If the Catholic church (or any other sect) does not like the law, stop taking out of the public purse and get out of an area the secular world should be running.

If RCs employed in child adption agencies, feel that their freedom of conscience will compel them to break the law, they should get employment elsewhere. Sorted.
They are publicly funded bodies, why on earth do they think that outwith public control. Comply with the law of the land, or lose funding. Sorted.

#256 Lyall
I think that really is the point - the decision on people's suitablity to adopt children should be made by those who know about adopting children. If the consensus was that gay people are not good for the welfare of the children, then fine. It's supposed to be based on what would be best for the child concerned, not the fact that a few adults might get a bit upset on the way.

Nemisis, to be quite honest, I think most people will be happy to leave you and the religious right to you own.

I have absolutely no issues with what people choose to believe in their own lives but they have no right for those beliefs to infiltrate the workplace, the school or . The UK is now a secular society with many religions, no one religion should be given precedence and similar no one religious group should be able to opt out of one of this country's laws.

At the end of the day, this law is to prevent discrimination against gay people purchasing goods or accessing a service. it is the catholic church which made it an issue by highlighting gay adoption and the only reason they did this was to to ignite bigoted debate. If an anti-discrimination law is to work, then there can be no opt outs. If they did, then it would leave open to a catholic hotel owner refusing a gay person/gay couple of a double-room for the night, and in this day and age, do we find this acceptable???

256 - exactly.

Many parents would not want their children to be adopted by same sex couples. Even if they did though, it would still be wrong, and no genuinely christian church could be involved.

Same sex couples should only conceivably be allowed to adopt children who are already homosexual, if that can be established. And then only through non christian organisations.

Scullion & Big eejit (are you really?) to take your argument to its logical conclusion: throw out all (partially)-state-funded organisations that happen to disagree with the law. Farcical, and, moreover undemocratic.

#3 Nevyn
Since we are quoting Isiah
Isiah 5 20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

You quoted cease to do evil. Surley the bible teaches that same sex relationships are wrong.

The RC church standing up for thier rights is good yet as Isiah predicted men would call good evil.

Just wonder if all this anti discrimination legislation means that the Act of Settlement will be repealed to allow non protestants to inherit the throne.Discrimination is enshrined in the British constitution

Scullion # 258

This is nothing to do with the public purse. It is extremely unlikely that any of the churches or other organisations for that matter, make a profit or break even on their adoption activites. The cash argument is a red herring. The churches see their involvement in adoption as a duty. The homosexual activists that are promoting this policy do not see it as a duty. but an extension of their other promotional activities.
I have never heard of any person who had been adopted say they wish they had been raised by two homosexual men, has anyone?
Tony Blair would never have been pushed to this ridiculous situation had he been politically stronger.

#263
You can disagree with the law all you want, but you'd best obey it.
Really now, defending religion by mentioning democracy. Risibly ironic.
However, it is a democratic decision; the elected representatives of the people, in a responsible government, have fulfilled their mandate. This is democracy at work.

TO EVERYONE - Think back to when you were a child. If you were up for adoption would you want to be adopted by heterosexuals or homosexuals?

Accepting governments funds is not the issue and not the answer.

Any thing that requires a LICENSE is controlled by the government. ANY LICENSE. A marriage license. A license for a street vendor. A license to open a store. The law is retroactive to licenses already issued. A chritian bookseller, for example, is NOW in violation of the law if he does not sell books that portray homosexuality as healthy and natural.

Anyone who needs a license of any kind, anyone who is is involved in a business of any kind that is regulated by any means by the government can be punished.

Zorbathejock: Spot on. Ha ha!

#265 Zorbathejock
Probably around the same time as they allow a non-Catholic (or - dare I say it??? - a WOMAN) to become Pope!!!!

'I think most people will be happy to leave you and the religious right to you own.'

Then leave us alone. That is all I am asking for, but genuine Christians ARE being attacked in their own organisations, both in relation to adoption and even worse marriage.

As for a hotel owner. She should let homosexuals into her hotel, but if she does not want actual homosexual acts occurring in her house, she has every right not to provide a double bed to people of the same sex. I would not go into a hotel owned by a homosexual and demand a double bed, or engage in heterosexual acts without permission.

I am interested in becoming a burglar. Could I please get exemption from the law against burglary? Don't worry, I will not break into very many houses: I will be responsible for less than 4% of all housbreaking offences. You will hardly notice that I am there.

If it helps, I am a prepared to be a politically correct burglar and burgle people without any regard to their religious affiliation (or lack of one), their colour, their sexual orientation, their ethnic backgkround, their sex and even (if there is such a thing) their 'gender'.

Zorbathejock # 265

All of the above that want and end to so called discrimination against homosexuals should now turn their attention to the discriminatory passages of the Act of Settlement 1701. We'll see...

media
clearly there is a conflict.It won't be resolved by legislation

No argument there JG. Just making a point about discrimination. They'll be telling us where to shop next

Scullion: I had no idea I was defending religion. Never done it knowingly. Was actually trying to defend us all from the ever-growing theft of whatever individual's or organisation's rights to decide as they think fit. There is a perfectly adequate appeal system for situations where we feel those individuals or oragnisations have used those rights unfairly. We do not need constant Blairite interference in social issues such as these.

#272 Nemesis
I didn't think a person had to apply for permission to be allowed to have moments of intimacy if they checked in to a hotel!!
"Dear Sir,
My husband and I would like to come to your hotel next weekend with a view to engaging in some hanky-panky. If you happen to be gay, please let us know and we'll go elsewhere."

#258
I'll believe that the moment I hear of the Catholic church refusing any funds. Pope Pius XII got into bed with Hitler to get the latter to help fund Catholic schools. The Catholic church sees it is as a duty to keep Catholics Catholic. That is not unwise for the institution but to see it as a boon to humanity is simply bogus.
Which child wishes they were adopted in the first place? A child that is brought up in a loving household will never question it, whether the parents are heterosexual Catholics, homosexual athiests or, polytheistic Hindus etc.

273 --- Should the government be excempting itself from its own anti religious discrimination agenda?

Tony-do you REALLY believe that gay couples are equivalent to heterosexual couples? And, do you know more about it than Church agencies that provide the service?

Will future generations of adopted children be taking the government to court for denying their basic human rights to have male and female parents

# 282 No, Zorbathejock, there is no such human right, whether basic or otherwise.

#282
Yes!
Shall we place our bets now?

Tell that to the courts Chic

If the hotel owner objects to any particular activity occurring in his house, then guests should either co-operate or demand a refund and leave.
I doubt most hotels care, but it is a matter of respect where they do. Otherwise, you could be discriminating against people of religious faith from becoming hoteliers.
Homosexuals can go and set up their own hotels and allow all the homosexual acts they like there. I couldn't care less.

Would this all mean that if I refused to hold a Gay Ball in my club I could be taken to court? And what if I refused to hold a Heterosexual Ball? Or even a Mixed Ball? The thing's mad.

Scullion # 279

You are right about no child wishing to be adopted, but where there are circumstances that make that necessary it is widely believed that two homosexual males are not near the ideal as adoptive parents. The churches have said they will not deal on that basis, what's the problem? I don't think there will be any chance of the Catholic Church not obeying the law, they will find another way of funding their adoption services. The Catholic Church in Scotland has been funding woman not to have abortions, they don't make a song and dance routine out of it and it is privately funded. The ones making the fuss are the militant homosexuals.
It is a cliche that when an argument is being lost the Nazi scenario is trotted out, it doesn't matter the subject.
Never mind who the Nazis funded, who funded the Nazis? America lite...

# 285 Check the list of huma right, Zorbathejock, I am pretty sure that your suggested on is not on it. If it is, what is its reference number?

I might be wrong, of course, since there is quite a lot of nonsense that is said to be our 'human right'.

#287 Haggismaker
I think I would object to you holding all of those balls. Will you ask permission first? Is that not a bit forward? I have found that shaking a person's hand is quite adequate!!!

Aren't the prisons too full to arrest those who violate the law?

More legislation will have to be passed to build new prisons.

Can we put that in who's backyard?

283 ---- This government is obsessed with 'human rights'.

I've been following this because it is bound to be an issue over here pretty soon. Personally, I'm glad to see the Church taking a really hard stand on this issue. I don't know the statitistics, but I am willing to bet that children raised in homosexual households are more likely to become homosexual themselves than children raised in heterosexual homes. If one believes that homosexuality is immoral, then it is like putting a child in the care of a felon. Yes, everyone performs an immoral act from time to time, but this is a "lifestyle", like prostitution is a lifestyle. Why shouldn't an agency, whose job it is to put helpless children into families, be allowed to make decisions about who to give or not to give children based on their lifestyle?

jg - ha ha! and I never even saw the pun. Oops.

286
Homosexual hotels
I can see it now "active poofs only"
now that would be discrimatory!

16 :3 probably covers it chic

Dentist No221
"The Catholic young mother wishes her child to have a Catholic upbringing.That is why she puts her child in trust, into their care."

Are you suggesting that the RC adoption agencies also discriminate against prospective parents, on grounds of their religion??

#293 Rules: Very good point and an important one. However, how does one solve this problem without creating division?

I absolutely understand why people would be against gay adoption. I also understand that a mum and dad would be easier for the child than two mums or two dads, but how do you deny a homeless child a loving family based on sex alone?

Would gay people not BE MORE INCLINED to want their adopted child to follow a hetrosexual life? Surely gay people having experienced the torment and the internal hell that comes with accepting who you are would want their child to avoid such trauma. I have a gay friend who still lives in Edinburgh who was petrified to tell his folks he was gay. He went through hell for years prior to telling them. I cant see a gay person doing anyting other than ensuring that their child is loved and steered in the right direction. Should the child happen to turn out gay that will NOT be proof that gay couples make gay children, for if that were true then hetrosexual parenting would always produce hetrosexual chidren.

Herein lies the rub of this situation. Whether the church finds funding through the government or through itself is not the question. The question that I raise is more of a criminal infraction issue. IF the government states that it is illegal for the church (whether protestant or catholic) to decline from the granting marriage to homosexuals or to adopt out children to homosexuals based upon religious belief then it becomes a criminal activity to decline such practice and the church becomes a target for legal action against her. This would be like saying that the government passes a law that states that it is illegal for you to discriminate against child pornographers utilizing your children for photography. If you have a child and you are unwilling to subject the to child pornography then you can be sued by the photographer who wants to use your child in such a way. My guess is that you are against the idea of having your child being put into such a position (at least I hope this would be the case) and you would do whatever you could to keep your child from something which you do not believe is right. So, in order to boost the rights of one group we destroy the principals of another? What if you were told in Scotland it is illegal to declare yourself a Scot, or in Ireland to declare yourself Irish. Instead you must adhere to the new law of the land which states that you are a Euro. People have become upset at the fact that you boast being Irish or Scottish and that you don't let them be Irish or Scottish because they were not born there and have never lived there so instead you have to give up that right to keep from being so discriminatory. You still claim that you are a Scot or Irish? Then you face being the target of legal action. Is that also right?

The moral right of every heterosexual child to be raised in a way that does not expose them to homosexual relationships, particularly between their guardians, is greater than any of the legal rights mentioned so far. This applies even to the natural heterosexual offspring of homosexuals, and this is only cancelled out by their other moral right to their natural biological parents, where the latter are not breaking the law.

Hiding behind the smokescreen of the "child's best interests" are a multitude of people who are very aware of their hatred/dislike of homosexuals for a variety of inexcusable reasons (i.e. religion and ignorance - which to my mind go hand in hand), then their are those who actually are not that aware of why the feel so hostile towards homosexuals but just do.

Those who are probably a little more aware of how a civilised human being should behave tend to cover their hatred with excuses, such as 'the child's best interests' because the do not wish to reveal themselves for what they really are. Conversely, several posters on this topic make no attempt to hide their homophobia at all - taking pride in their hatred.

I think I 'respect' more those who say exactly how they feel based on their emotions towards homosexuals and do not use children as a cover-up.

At least if your going to be homophobic (or racist) have the guts to be what you are rather than be closeted about it.

The arguements have been done to death ... the law will be passed and the Catholic Church in Scotland will toe the line or retire from the adoption scene. In either case it will be a DECISION they will make and as a consequence it will be their CHOICE.

I for one look forward to 2008 and the introduction of equality based on ability to foster and not based on one group's inability to accept homosexuality!

Very true media 1 My point is just that people and organisations should be free to follow their own beliefs and not be dictated to by government.By not sending children to "gay" couples ( a much abused word) the Catholic church are harming no one so why interfere

Let's not confuse what the God says about homosexuality and the homsexual as a person. God loves the homosexual just as He loves all sinners (unless you are Jesus Christ you fit into this category Romans 3:23). He calls homosexual activiety an abomination. This is not hatred directed at the sinner, it is a feeling toward the sin itself.

Does a reasonable person then conclude that God would support the adoption of a child into the midst of a homosexual environment (remember He calls it an abomination)?

God says that proper marriage is between one woman and one man.

If the Catholic church is to be a conduit for the statutes of God, who are we to tell God's supposed institution to allow homosexuals to adopt. Thereby, telling God, thanks for the Book, but we think we can do it better.

Homosexual relationships are usually even less stable and durable than contemporary heterosexual ones. Even where a same sex couple had been together for years, I bet that they would still be likelier to break up than a heterosexual couple who had been together for the same length of time. But even if they were going to be stable and durable for life, they still would not be providing a proper environment for a heterosexual child.

#294
It already happened.
March 2006 Boston Catholic Charities closed its adoption mission rather than comply with the law imposed by the state.

It isn't about receiving federal funds; they received only $1 million as reimbursment from the state which they easily could have raised through charitable means : the legal issue is about the license required.

ANY LICENSE. ANY PERMIT.

IF YOU DO NOT MEET THE GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS YOUR LICENSE TO OPERATE IS REVOKED:
IF THE BUSINESS CONTINUES TO OPERATE IT IS A CRIMINAL ACT.

Occupancy permits for example are issued by the government. Drivers license.

It is a long slippery slope that can end only at rock bottom.

It will take only one person, (homosexual or not) to ruin the life and well-being of a hardworking bsuiness owner.

#304 Zorbathejock: I agree, the Church is not harming anyone. But today's liberal governments are doing what they can to cater for all people regardless of their sexual preference. Therefore, having passed such a law it would be seen as discriminatory to deny a gay couple the right to adopt.

Now, whether that ruling to permit gay people to adopt is in our view correct or not, the law says they can adopt, therefore, the church must comply.

However, I would imagine that the church can employ a sort of Right of Admission Reserved type of policy.

I can see gay people the world over marching in their millions against the RCC. The church has power, but when a million people in over 100 nations all decide to march on the same day, they will need to sit up and listen one would think.

Yes, having been raised in a christian home, I personally believe that homosexuality is wrong, but you are free to differ. I do not object to people living homosexual lifestyles, but they should not bring heterosexual children or the churches into it in any way. The churches are the victims here, not the aggressors.

If you are white and straight you are very much in the minority today. Decades from now no-one will be white or straight.

#309

and you prove by that offensive remark that the category of those who hate and are proud to display that hate exist and are posting on this forum!

Since the dawn of time there have always been Gay People, so what they are human like anyone else they cant help how they feel and this should not be held against them.
The Catholic Church has always had to much power and made a point of showing it, you never hear of the Catholic Church saying anything about the Priests and Nuns that are Gay, but when it comes to anything else they like to wield a bit of Power.
Give the Minority a chance to live a normal life and give a Kid a chance to be with a Family or are they better off in a home, i don't think so

James in Kentucky: I do not for one second believe that the RCC hierachy have even contemplated what the god dude said or did not say..The hierachy in the Vatican know there is no divine god, what they do know though, is that there is a dollar god. The dollar god rakes in billions,its all politics.

If the church continue to give up their traditions, they are required to invent new lies to support their stance. Do it long enough and the religious masses become disallusioned. That means LESS money!

Its all a nonsense!

Alexander. I find your comments about "poofs" offensive.

Your point about Iraq however is worth examining.
"remember the invasion of iraq when the people said NO?"
The Chief of the UN and many experts in International Law said the war was illegal.

Labour then made an illegal war legal.
Now they make a legal adoption agency illegal.

The Law often has exceptions. Doctors cannot be forced to perform legal abortions. They just refer the woman to doctors who do not have concientious objections.

All agencies discriminate between potential adopters. That is part of their role. Examples: Race. - black chidren go to black families. Age. Adopters are told "you are to old".

Vote For Change.
Anyone but Labour.

#307
Please quote your sources that justify your statement. If you have none, it is simply your opinion. Please look at the rate of single mothers in the U.S. population and tell me more about the stability of heterosexual relationships.
#306
My country says that marriage is between 2 consenting adults of legal age. That trumps your authority. (Please don't start with "what if 3 adults etc." If heterosexuals can't do it, homosexuals can't do it). Don't quote dogma to justify dogma.
#294
Some might say that the whole Boston archdiocese should be shut down-and the church hierarchy arrested.

The entire thing is absurd on its face. Homosexuals are not heterosexuals, meaning that their possibilities for procreation are almost zero.

Even though homosexuality is a fact within the primate order, these primates, biologically speaking, are dead ends, whether they're people or chimps. They don't in most cases pass on their genes to a subsequent generation.

A very, very few human homosexuals do procreate for one reason or another, and by one means or another. So far, no government has tried to stop them from doing so, at least not to my knowledge.

I'd be interested in seeing a study on the long-term results of homosexual adoptions. Then maybe we'd have something factual to discuss.

I had given up reading and contributing to the Scotsman comment sections due to the very poor quality of debate, but this one is of a much higher calibre. Usually on such a subject as this all we hear in response to any disapproval of homosexual acts is “homophobia”, “hatred”, “all religions should be banned”.

The writers can sit back believing they have won they debate by simply typing out the latest buzz words. It doesn’t work as well nowadays.

Excepting the Nazis, of course...

Scone Mason: when you can offer a proof of the nonexistence of God, then I'm sure we'll all be happy to hear it.

No organisation, but particularly not a religious one, should be forced to arrange or allow any kind of homosexual practice on its property, including homosexual dances. If the organisation wants homosexuality to be practiced on its property fine, but not otherwise. I do not seek to stop homosexuality providing heterosexuals are shielded from it, either if they want to be or if they are children.

The buzz word for today is “discrimination”. Here is one definition I found,

“The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment”

Based on this, I say discrimination is vital when placing children with new parents.

I am a catholic but often feel that the Catholic Church is too unforgiving in its edicts. However, with time I have come to respect a number of their positions.
My initial thoughts would suggest that they are wrong and that single sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. However, my belief system is telling me it is wrong and that the Catholic Church is right to make a powerful stance on this issue.
I believe that a child should whenever possible be brought up by a mother and father. If this position is discriminatory then I am discriminating and I support the right of catholic adoption agencies to discriminate against single sex couples.
Same sex couples can apply elsewhere and I am sure that they will achieve their objectives.
I am totally taken aback by the stance of Ruth Kelly. I would have expected more.
Perhaps the Scotman should run a survey amongst labour MPS and ascertain thier views. The result would make interesting reading.

VFC: exactly what constituence did the UN director refer to when he said the Iraq war is "illegal?"

Under whose laws? Certainly not the laws of my country. The UN doesn't make laws. It only comments on various problems around the world, and almost never offers a workable solution.

The UN would do better to concentrate on wiping out malaria, HIV, Tuberculosis,, or ethnic wars and accompanying famines in Africa. The director general of the UN is not elected by the American people and has no right to speak for us, not does any other UN member except our own ambassador thereto.

Yes, homosexuals are people.
Yes, Christianity might be wrong. But it still does not follow that Christians should be forced to allow their property and religious preachers to become involved in anything connected with homosexuality. And if all religion is false, then evolution must be true, and evolution would be based on heterosexuality. No homosexual relationship produces children, so no homosexual relationship is of equal worth in raising children. It just is not natural.

I was answering somebody; please see #331, who also is stating the same thought I had.

The Church stands accused of insisting orphaned children need a mum and dad.

Pursuing this core belief will soon be a criminal offence.

Yet another anti Catholic act from anti Catholic Britain.

- The British Army murdered & maimed innocent Catholics in N. Ireland.
- The RUC murdered & maimed innocent Catholics in N. Ireland.
- Anti catholic legislation remains on the Statute Book.
- and now.....yet more anti Catholic legislation.

I have always been a labour voter.

It ends now. I will vote for that filth no more.

Yes it is immoral for same sex couples to raise children, but that does not exclude individual homosexuals from WORKING with children, although it is still immoral for them to promote homosexuality if they do.

The Bible, (in both its old and new testaments) is itself opposed to homosexuality, and therefore, anyone who accepts the Bible must also condemn it. Of course, you are free to reject the Bible, and you might be right in doing so, but it is then the height of absurdity to call yourself a Christian.

Few real Christians remain in the largely pagan UK so there is no point in persecuting them, and as Christianity has always thrived on being persecuted, there could be a great deal to lose from the government's perspective.

Those who insist on same sex parenthood should go ahead and have children themselves.

They'll find Mother Nature is trying to tell them something.

#324
Asking someone to prove the nonexistence of something is such a canard that both the law and science reject the proposition outright (except in some cases of civil law involving a danger when strict liability is imposed upon the defendant). If you suggest something and it cannot be disproved, it doesn't exist. If it did, what cannot exist? Bogeymen? Fairies? Religious open mindedness?
Accept the scientific idea of what cannot be reproducably tested has no scientific validity. This is why philosophy, morality and religion have no place in the sphere of science and science, for better or worse, has no interest in them.

320,

It's not for you then? OK.

Is it OK if I do it?

Or is it illegal now?

336

you're mistaken.

Homosexuals CANT become parents natural.

Homosexuals CANT provide a Mum and a Dad.

Homosexuals CANT provide paternal + maternal care for a child.

Martha, Many Americans think American Law trumps International Law.
Many do not.
The point is the Law is sometimes open to opinion.
Courts in the same country often disagree.

British Law often has exceptions. See #317

British Labour MPs are being whipped to follow the party line.
Not their conscience.

Vote For Change
Any party but Labour.

Nemesis #331, talking of "evolution", this is another fraud, at least at Darwinism's level - but that is a whole other subject - or is it? I would like to draw everyone's attention to the incredible process by which a baby is conceived, grows in the womb and is born. It shows that life is far more complex than could possibly occur by time, chance and natural processes – all that the evolutionists have in their armoury.

My main point is this – because the process must be the result of so-called “intelligent design” the Creator made this incredible succession of miracles as revealed in the body. If you don’t know, this is seriously miraculous biology, and the Creator therefore must have had the intention of a man and a woman joining to be one flesh and producing children, just as Genesis says, so biology supports scripture supports gut instinct supports common sense.

There is no question that two homosexual men or women are unqualified to be joint parents while there is a natural family available.

336,

if the child is is a poor situation, adopt him to a caring mum and dad.

You're missing the point anyway...

the exclusion demnaded by the Church wouldnt stop homosexuals adopting children, as the Church accounts for only ~4% adoptions.

"Responding to comments from Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster and the most senior figure in the Catholic Church in England and Wales, the independent UK religious think-tank Ekklesia says it is a mistake to automatically conflate church-based initiatives in civil society with government-sponsored services.

The Cardinal has suggested that the Government’s refusal to allow its publicly-funded adoption agencies to refuse gay adoptees poses a threat to the voluntary work carried out by all churches. Ekklesia says this is not so.

Instead it suggests that the “adjustment period” of 21 months creates a fresh opportunity for a “mature and careful reconsideration on both sides of the role of the churches in relation to the government, with its responsibility to provide for all, and civil society, where there is space for a number of actors and different contributions.”

The basis of this reconsideration, says Ekklesia, needs to be an acknowledgement that Britain - wait for it, wait for it - is not a ‘Christian country’ but a plural society in which the great majority of the population are no longer regular Christian adherents.

The churches can therefore no longer assume that their definitions of what is right will be accepted by everybody, especially when public money is going into service intended for the whole community, it says. But this is an opportunity not a threat for the churches.

The think tank points out that discrimination against lesbian and gay people has been strongly opposed by a number of Christians on theological grounds, and that the churches need to acknowledge that they do not speak with one voice.

Ekklesia says that the argument about church and government is “deeply confused” when people ignore the crucial distinction between public provision and voluntary action.

“Reactions to the Equality Act, which most people see as a matter of consistency and fairness, hark back to th

'Why then should homosexual people be denied this?'

Because none of these children are yours and it is their rights that matter, not your's. Starting with the right not to be mentally corrupted, even if they were going to remain straight. Although some heterosexuals are infertile, its not obvious to the children, and even if they do find out they will not be corrupted by it. Whether your guardians are the same or opposite sexes could not be more obvious.

If homosexuals want children, let them go and have them the same way everyone else does.

But despite all this, same sex couples are getting to adopt children. They do not need to victimise a tiny christian minority to get what they are getting anyway.

345

Fascinating stuff, Kaffir, but hardly a coherent rationale for criminalising those who follow their religious beliefs in Britain in 2007, nor for depriving an orphaned child of a mum and dad.

When Mother Nature decided Raymond and Raymond couldnt have babies, she was trying to tell us something.

A CHILD NEEDS A MUM AND DAD.

A CHILD NEEDS MATERNAL AND PATERNAL CARE.

346,

now much of that is true, and if there were some heinous shortage of suitable parents you MAY have a case, but....there are many many adults willing to become loving mums and dads to these children.....so let's not listen to Mother Nature's advice.

AND NOTE - there is no attempt to stop homos from adopting children.

THE issue here is the criminalisation of long established beliefs of millions of Catholics in the UK.

THIS LEGISLATION IS THE DEATH KNELL OF THE LABOUR PARTY.

There are plenty of kids in Scotland desperate for homes so stop this creationism.

The real stushie will be when they want desingner babies like Madonna. However, this argument is about the Catholic Adoption agencies.

And so it goes on. Despite all the above twitterings I wonder how many people who have posted comments today actually give a toss about kids in homes let alone have done anything about it. It’s easy to sit for 5 minutes taking the moral high ground or give vent to your own particular brand of bigotry but hats off to anyone, Mo’s or otherwise, who are willing to give a child a home and take on the lifetime responsibility of adoption!

#342
Please don't start that argument or we'll have to shove Dover, Pennsylvania down your throat.
Please review Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. If you rely on this Intelligent Design nonsense, expect to be ridiculed-even by the Pope.
Again, spare us your Dark Age mentality as it has caused enough problems.
A loving family is what a child needs; with it you need neither money nor religion. Heterosexuality has no monopoly on love. This should be the only prerequisite for adoption.

342 ---- I am not taking sides in the evolution v christianity debate. I merely state that homosexuality would do nothing for evolution anymore than it is consistent with Christianity.

Furthermore, femininity and masculinity play complementary psychological roles in child rearing, which are not just about parental love, which will obviously not be the case with same sex guardianship. Every child needs a Mum and Dad, period.

However, as same sex adoption was happening already, there was no point in forcing churches to co-operate, and thus breaking anti religious discrimination policies. What is even worse is the prospect of ministers being locked up for refusing to perform homosexual 'marriage' ceremonies.

'Christ said that we should love God and love our neighbour as ourselves. Those who try to do that are entitled to call themselves Christians.'

Although Christians must indeed love the sinner, they must still hate the sin. And Christ condemned homosexuality as does the entire Bible.

get married
get kids
get the birth rate up
otherwise it'll be the rule of islam and this discussion will be irrelevant

If we think we monopolize the truth and pretend to have a dialogue, it is not authentic. We have to believe that by engaging in dialogue with the other person, we have the possibility of making a change in ourselves, that we can become deeper . . . .

The gay rights lobby give no quarter - they seem to want it all - and to destroy and denigrate the Church - which is so valuable to so many people.

The religious right demonise homosexuals and do not see the good in them as everyday human beings.

I can't stand schreeching gay rights or hypocritical religious zealots.

Gays can already adopt.

Leave the Church alone to do its excellent work.

Leave the gay people to do what they choose to do if it doesn't harm or offend.

Leave the Catholics to uphold the obvioulsy valuable belief in children being cared for within a traditional family unit. Don't send them to jail for this.

Gay rights - you've gone too far this time. You have the right to adopt - and I wish all of you the very best in this - but stop here and think of the damage you are doing to very, very valuable services.

In the end, the Church will not budge on this.

Now, let's see if my Scots forbear hadn't been sold as a slave in New York, on Wall Street on the block, and New Jersey colonies, his grandson would never have met and married my gggggrandmother of Hugenot decent from Alsace. Thought crime? Her ancestor's were to have been burned by Richelieu because of their thoughts. Does any one really think that medieval anachronism extant in Vatican City has changed? Should we give them the opportunity to prove they haven't?

Discimination in any form has its base in hate and unhealthy judgement -the counterbalance is a base of love - hate is more easily taught and admired than love
- unfortunatly all of our Christian churches seem to have failed in the teaching of love, the core and base of Christian belief and values - what we are seeing now are just the fruits of their failure to do what they were supposed to do

"If you love people without cause you find indubitble causes for loving them"
(Tolstoy - War and Peace)

Is secular thinking and values now outstripping those of the Christian churches??

Any ministers or priests out there who would like to comment ??

359

I am a university graduate and know a lot about many of the things I am interested in. I do not want to know one thing about homosexuality, so the more 'ignorant' I am on the subject the better. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not allowed to be ignorant enough on the subject. Actually I was such a swot in school I was myself accused of being a homosexual, and I still have not got over that insult.
Homosexuals as individuals need not necessarily corrupt children, but being parented by a same sex couple very easily could, even if they were going to stay together. There is no need to take this extreme risk with already very vulnerable orphans etc.

The Roman Catholic church should act according to its conscience and teachings. It has been criticised severely for not doing this in Nazi Germany, where it was quite prepared to go along with the law, even when that was in direct contradiction to its teaching.

Aside: do homosexual bars etc. employ the same proportion of heterosexuals as there are in the country as a whole?

Hope my kids learn a lot more than you Nemesis at uni.Hopefully one of them would be tolerance and the other is that the world is filled with people from diverse backgrounds and we should acknowledge that.

Good one AngusMor... although I enjoy when the Americans are in the house... makes the worst of our lot seem not so bad! :-)

Horrible Cankers #351, the process from conception to birth is full of what is known as irreducible complexity, i.e. individual processes have to be in place in their entirety to function, and that poses a major problem to Darwinism.

#330 Martha,
Why are you implying the war in IRAQ which we started is legal ?
Give one factual and logical reason.

Suppose Pres V.V. Putin of Russian told the Russian people that the US with the world's largest arsenal of WMD was going to attack Russia like Bush attacked Iraq.

How would you and I and the other 299 million Americans react and behave?

When we find that Russian nuclear subs armed with muti-warhead missiles were trawling beneath the surface 100 Km from our shores.

And large movement of Russian troops were observed near Povideniya across from Alaska.

And Russian spy satellites were monitoring all US military movement on the 48 contig. states.

Knowing that Russian is no Iraq and has real WMD would we prepare to fight back..YES

Would you consider that a Russian attack on the US would be legal?

Give their fear that Leaders Like Bush would try anything if he thought he would get away with it.

Putin would be pre-emptying Bush's ability to repeat IRAQ.
So would that make Putin's attack legal ?

GC

Darwin renounced is Theory of Evolution on his death bed and stated be believed in God.

Davydubbit

Aye, the Americans put an interesting colour on things!

158 Neil: Er, all religions are intolerant. It's in the very fabric of religion and, indeed, State. It's simply the way it is. If you have one particular faith based on a (or various) specific Gods/doctrine etc that are not shared by others, then there is intolerance. You wouldn't have that particular faith is you said, "Oh, yes, I'm a Sunni Muslim but, you know, these Catholics are right too and the Wee Frees are simply 'spot-on'. In fact, if I go to Scotland I will convert!" If you support Rangers, you are intolerant of, well, anyone. If you support the Tories you are, by definition, intolerant of socialism. You get the idea? This isn't bigotry from me, just thought.

Would I be bigoted for making the following point?- While I hate to sum up 100 000 years of human philosophical development in a 3 second sound bite, but- God does NOT exist.

This mythical entity has been abused by the 'elites' for too long.

Would I want a child brought up by folk who believed in a God that told 'His' only believer (Abraham) to kill his only son? Plagues and pestilence? Folk who believe the earth was created in 6 days? Sorry, no. However, I don't want a law about it. Satan was actually a nice myth in comparison. Witch hunts, Inquisition, Cath vs Prod, Christian vs Islam, Sunni vs Shiia, Holy war, current islamophobia, Onward Christian soldiers, dis-information about condoms and HIV, Bush talking to God..... No, sorry. If all of that is made possible because of 'faith', then I choose to remain free. Choice. Freedom. Responsibility. Learning. Open mindedness. Oh, forgot, all of that is promoted by the kirks as Satanism!

344: I couldn't agree more.

#364
I am a university graduate and don't know a lot about many things. But I would never refuse to learn about what I profess to hate-then why would you hate it other than innate bigotry, which education is designed to remove?
You haven't gotten over being called a homosexual? Ah, now we see the problem. I remember a young Oriental man asking me out at a swimming pool last year. I couldn't wait to tell my wife. Men, women, I turn them all on.
G'arn get over it.

Finnking

Go do some more finking will you. For 2 billion people on this planet, a Christian God does exist and they are FREE to CHOOSE to believe in him RESPONSIBLEY. It is not up to those of us who choose not to believe in Him to tell others that do that He is a figmentation.

Scullion

You sexy man you!

Why do some homosexuals put on funny voices? Always wondered. Would the children learn this way of speaking?

I got an education to succeed in life, not to become some perverted athiest. I never sacrificed one thing I believed in, even when I had to pretend to do to pass assessments. I was raised a Christian. Period.

The ruling is everywhere in international news.

Those who wrote the UK homosexual agenda are surely ordering crates of champagne-
Now that they have won in the UK, what is next on their list, and where?

I agree with #8: >One thing that I've noticed more and more of late in this so called democratic Britain, is that you're freely entitled to any viewpoint you want, as long as you agree with everyone else,<

Why are we invading other countries to impose upon them, among other things, Free Speech & Democracy??? The politicians should Admit We Don't Live In A Free Speech Democracy!

Homosexuality is based on the love of people, not on the love of sin, and the Bible condemns homosexuality absolutely. No real christian disputes this. Only frauds do.
As for thought crime, it is the christian churches, all of them (including the Huguenots if they still exist) not just the Catholic Church, who are being accused of committing it. This despite the fact that this rotten government is supposedly opposed to discriminating against people on the basis of their religious convictions.

Would two transvestites be allowed to adopt now?

I got an education because I want to make as much money as I possibly can, not for the sake of abandoning the community I was raised in. I could say far more but I would doubtless be expelled from this forum if I did.

OOPS- DOUBTLESS MY OPPONENTS WILL ACCUSE ME OF A FREUDIAN SLIP. LET THEM RELISH THEIR LITTLE DIG.
CHRISTIANITY is based on the love of people, not on the love of sin, and the Bible condemns homosexuality absolutely. No real christian disputes this. Only frauds do.
As for thought crime, it is the christian churches, all of them (including the Huguenots if they still exist) not just the Catholic Church, who are being accused of committing it. This despite the fact that this rotten government is supposedly opposed to discriminating against people on the basis of their religious convictions.

Are these homophobic questions?

Is the Catholic Church the only one against this strange new law? What do Muslims, Hindus, Proddies think of it? At the end of the day, we get the Government we Deserve.

385 - not at all. Absolutely valid points.

374 Angusmor: Er, that was my point. You misunderstood. I was trying to stress the point of choice. I may not agree/like etc but I accept. I was simply countering the God squad's homophobia.They say that placing a child with a same sex couple is bad (sin) and they shouldn't be forced by law to accept this. (I agree with them about the law). However, they go on about same sex relationships as being unnatural, a sin, against the teachings of Christ etc. Intolerance. I respect genuinely religious people, admire, even. The genuinely religious people I have met, of all faiths, wouldn't give a rat's a**e about same sex relationships. They are 'free' within thier chosen faith. I disagree that this is 'real' freedom but so what? I applaud thier lack of hypocricy. However, how many religious folk have you met recently who weren't hypocrites? Damn few. The don't make Jews like Jesus anymore!

#382 and #384
No, we are more tolerant than to thump someone over a small mistake.
However, what is more disconcerting is your love of money and being a professed Christian.
"Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God."
"Go forth and announce the kingdom! Possess no copper or silver or gold. Take no bag or bread or extra garment. Take with you not even a staff"
Nemesis, you are whited sepulchre. Your love of luchre and not knowledge makes you a hypocrite in both religious and secular society.
However, we forgive you. Accept those that are different as we accept you for what you are. And this is from an agnostic.

361

discrimination in the quest for appropriate parents is not only good, it's vital.

Us Proddies (lovely use of word) well actually Wee Frees arn't bothered nor affected by this ruling as long as you remain dour, stoic and conservatively reserved about being hetro, homo or otherwise.

The central issue here is this- in a free society should we not allow people and institutions the right to discriminate according to their beliefs? I personally have no problem with gay adoption and have friends who adopted two children in a landmark move in this country, but if we tolerate organisations such as the BNP whose views are racist and often homophobic surely we must give the same rights to the RCC! I incidentally think that the RCC is enormously hypocritical about the whole homosexuality issue-certainly the anecdotal evidence suggests that perhaps even a majority of them are gay anyway! Any organisation that tries to supress human sexuality the way they do has to end up terribly twisted and angst ridden. PS I have no beef with catholics-my missus is half Irish Catholic and half Jewish!

Ah, got you Finnking. Fair play.

389,

you have a fundamental ignorance of the position of the church.

would it not be better to learn something of a topic before displaying your ignorance here?

Richard - whether our Nemesis friend speaks to God or not is his/her business. Can't really recommend psychiatric help for someone who believes. That's what this is all about - live and let live.
If I can't get the service I want in one shop, I'll go elsewhere. If the RCs don't want to provide this particular service because they don't believe in it, find an agency that will. Plenty of 'em.

Which half is which Geoff?

OK... Minister's response here (Thanks for the invite #361 - Cunuck). If you've read my previous posts I think you'll see a consistency with what I am about to reply with. I am not advocating treating homosexuals any different than any other sinner. I do stipulate that because homosexuality is a choice of ongoing practice of what Scripture defines as a sin, to advocate that the church should go along with it and give sanction and even give allowance for it is like saying that a person's faith and practice of belief is of no importance and that the person who is held by the standards of their faith to not waiver in what they believe in should be persecuted, prosecuted and discriminated against. Many people are stating that it is not right that Christians stand up for their beliefs and protect themselves from having their faith compromised. Yes, the Bible teaches that we are to love one another and to love our neighbor and even our enemy as ourselves, just as God loves us. However, this concept that God says accept all things and conform to all things and to adopt into faith those things which are clearly defined in God's Word as corruptions of faith is like saying that a person should learn to breathe underwater because everyone else is trying to do it. I can't breathe underwater, and I can't subvert my faith to accept and give sanction to sinful lifestyles. I don't care whether that be pornographic addictions, alcoholism, rapists, murderers, homosexuals, pediphiles, drug-users - not even to the thoughts that preclude those activities (Jesus Himself said that it's not just the action of having adulterous lifestyles that is the sin - it's the lust that precludes it, not just the act of committing murder, but the anger that starts up inside - it's the precursor to the sin that is also sin). I can still love the person caught up in the sin, but to accept the sin as ok is not an option. And then to give consent to the sin through giving an ok to marriages an

Geoff 393,

there is anecdotal evidence the queen is gay.

there's NO hypocrisy from the Church on this item.

Contrary to what various ignorant posters have said here, the Church has no problem with homosexuality per see.

Leaving aside the actual events, what happened here was that the Catholic church was asked to sign up to liberty and equality etc and to assure the rest of us is believes in basic freedoms.

Who do they think they are threatening the government and British society?

I guess they are not ready for the 21st century yet.

391. Pex Vebescum, UK

"discrimination in the quest for appropriate parents is not only good, it's vital"

Absolutely. It is the duty of the adoption agency to discriminate in favour of the child.

just looking back on the last 15\20 posts on this difficult topic I am amazed at the ignorance of many contributors re the doctrine of the church.

I honestly believe many hold the church in contempt for views it does not hold.

so many stupid people see two old episodes of dave allen and think they know about the world's largest religion.

392 Angus Mor-We proddies!! Love it..and of course tight mouthed too! Your comments remind me of a picture of my Grand dad- Blazer and paisley hankie,tweed cap, pipe clutched in small unsmiling mouth-he wouldnt have liked the homo or RC bits though!! Ah well, different generation!

401,

i entirely agree, bill, and hope that they find the right mum and dad for the poor wee soul. god bless.

de bono, keep up! 2 transvestites or she-males can adopt, as long its not from a catholic agency!

Bono: married couple, one of whom later changes sex?

Didn't the various churches have issues about mixed race marriages too?

If this law was purely about gay adoption then even I, as a gay man, would agree with Nemesis and De Bono that catholic agencies could continue not to put their children with gay couples.

This isn't about gay people trying to bring down the church. It is about passing an anti-discrimination law which prevents any business or public service to discriminate against gay people, gay adoption is just one aspect of it.

If you pass anti-discrimination laws, you simply CAN NOT have opt outs for different groups or organisations.

It would be like passing the sex discrimination laws but saying to the construction sector or mining industry : "you can still discriminate against women, because lets face it, women aren't as strong or capable of doing manual work."

its the principle of equality. simple as. and its shocking that we're in the 21st century and there's still no anti-discrimation law for gay people!

Aye Geoff, things have moved on a bit since those days. We're still dour and reserved though..............

Prophetx - OK as far as you go. But, just for interest, who decided that homosexuality is a sin? Is it really Biblical? I don't profess to know. As far as I'm aware there are many, many things classed as sin the Bible which are looked on with more tolerance today. The example which comes to mind is that you should not cook a lamb or goat in its mother's milk. And I'm not trying to be flippant.

btw, that doesn't mean i don't agree with gay adoption - i do, but agree that we can do it through other agencies... but again, this is a much wider law to prevent anti-gay discrimination

406,

what churches had issues with mixed race marriages?

when?

where?

Pex Vebescum: from 398 Profit x:"I am not advocating treating homosexuals any different than any other sinner".

How, exactly do I "have a fundamental ignorance of the position of the church" if that is an example of the thought process the church has?

399 pex-church has no problem with homosexuality! No, they are just not allowed to do it -isn't that a mortal sin? No wish to offend you or your beliefs but recent well publicised incidents involving homosexual abuse of young people by Catholic priests and the subsequent blatant cover up of this by the Vatican, is frankly sickening AND makes their whole stance in this adoption issue enormously hypocritical.
397 Angus Mor-not sure whether its left/right or top/bottom but I can tell u I've got an Orange toothbrush and hers is Green!

Hugh (370) - In response to your view on reading and discerning Scripture.

I got a letter from my mom the other day and she said that all is well and I should come home to see my dad.

The letter read:

Dear son,
I am writing you presently with sad tidings. ALL IS, WELL - I can hardly say it without crying... Your father passed away this morning in a car accident. You should COME HOME right away. The funeral will be this weekend. I'm sorry you couldn't SEE YOUR FATHER one more time before this happened.
Love,
Mom

Obviously if I take things out and pick and choose what to read the message is 100% different. Good luck on the whole picking and choosing thing. I prefer to read the letter in full before coming to conclusions.

"The family is ordained of God. Marria