so because we're the catholic church, we should be allowed to discriminate

[wannaBeWhateverIWannaBe]

or we'll close our

adoption agencies

Although that does rather imply an acceptance of the teachings of Jesus/the bible doesn't it?

Surely it's OK to argue against those?

[not much biblical case, so it is a law that is man made.]

I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
I am a R.C, who disagrees with my church on many issues including their stance on homosexuality and contraception. However, I think that adoption agencies run by religious groups (all religious groups) should be exempt.

When you adopt through a Catholic adoption agency you agree to bring that child up in the Catholic faith. They are looking for married couples who are active in the Catholic community and will send the children to a Catholic school to participate in the sacramental programme.

The law is there (quite rightly)to protect the civil rights of everyone regardless of their sexual orientation. It shouldn't be used to beat upon the beliefs of individuals. Homosexual couples will have many secular adoption agencies to choose from. Many will make excellent parents to disadvantaged children. Very few would actually choose the Catholic agencies anyway.

Why force religious groups to compromise their core beliefs on a principle of law which is, in reality not actually needed in order to make sure that homosexual couples have the opportunity to adopt?

Why

No, catholics believe the church is divine. All doctrine stems from Christ and the apostles - it was not simply 'made up' by blokes on a power trip who wanted to start a religion.
Anyway, I am shamefully inept at defending catholicism, I must brush up!

Am I right in thinking that theology is a pet subject of yours Ruty?

Anyway, bath-time beckons.

Ruty you sound like my Theology lecturer LOL- (well you could know him, who knows?) he spends most of his time- not exactly crticing the Church, but with a certain sceptical glint in his eye, iykwim! He's not biased mind you- he's the same about Islam as well.

Maybe I'm wrong, but a good number of theTheologians I come across (and less knowledgeable types like me) seem to go with the C'hrist might well have been right, but goodness this Church (into which read whatever branch you wish) likes a bit of power doesn't it?' attitude.

This is an interesting discussion where it not for those who make one off rude remarks about the church.

I do not agree with lots of things, but it would be crap of me to be rude about them and it actually stinks of losing the argument. When you resort to insults then where is the logic?

Fwiw, my mother adopted using the catholic adoption agency. They placed 2 black children with her. My sister also adopted recently with them and again they placed a black child with her. I think this is very forward thinking in a society where people are still segregated by the colour of their skin.

I personally think that children are better with a loving family no matter how dysfunctional the family seems to be, than in a home. However for those criticising the church just remember that is was and still is christians who take in the dysfunctional when society turns it back. Christians who work in the worst places in the world to bring hope to other people. Priest who risk their lives to save their people (yes I know of a wonderful priest who was tortured and killed in Africa by a rebel tribe and western nuns who were raped just because of their religion.)

I respect the church. I respect all churches because at the heart of every one of them is a respect of other people. Ok, they fuck up just like every other person, but their fundamental message that every churchgoer aspires to, is a love of God and each other.

The catholic church already places children with single parent families and could even place them with same sex couples if circumstances dictated. What the church is saying is that atm those placements are at the discretion of the board. They do not want to be told what to do by a group of officials who do not understand the catholic faith and they do not want to open themselves up to litigation because they have refused placements.

As they rightly say, if same sex couples want to adopt, there are other agencies that will allow this. The catholic churches procedures are more rigourous than most and I for one applaud this.

Christians aren't just pushing for adoption agencies to be exempt, but any business run by people of any faith.
It seems to me that if they cannot run an adoption agency without bigotry then it is a good thing that they leave the process.

The position given by ruty is eloquently damning of Christans. They want this power to increase the number of christian kids of their particular sect, and to provide and incentive for their parents to be good christians.
I think the idea of using babies as bargaining chips as even worse than anti-gay bigotry.
This affair is casting a bright light upon the shabby practices of these organisations.

What next I wonder ?

What do you call anti-Christians? You know, those people who insult others because they have a faith? Are they bigots I wonder?

DC you smell.

I'm not insulting these people for their faith.
I'm insulting them because their excuse of "faith" looks more like a shallow excuse of bigoted misuse of power.
Many Chrisitans don't agree with this postion either. What does that make them ?

The Catholic church is quite happy to take money from gay taxpayers. It does not deny itself the use of services provided by people who happen to be gay.
It's "principled stand" seems only to apply when it wants to exercise it's power over couples desparate to adopt.
Maybe I do smell, but I don't like abuses of power, you do. Maybe you smell better because of it.
I'm glad for you.

When it comes to 'abuses of power', let's not forget the social worker who turned down a Christian couple as adoptive parents b/c they had 'not had enough sexual experience' i.e. they had only slept with each other.

Prejudice isn't confined to the religious.

For me its about the children there is a lack of loving people out there to adopt and foster in all religions. Quite frankly i dont care if they are gay as long as they are good kind loving parents who can give a good home. The only experience i have is that i am adopted and so is my brother.

Rhubarb, leave it. You have valiantly and eloquently argued a balanced Catholic stand point, but the anti cathloic vitriol will go on and on.
There is quite a bit on MN I'm afraid I've noticed, sometims catholisism feels like the the last 'life style choice' to be given respect.

I have noticed that quite often those vehemently against the schools, applied to get in...but a whole nother debate....

Yes I do smell better because I am a woman and we all smell of nice things, whereas you are a man and by default you smell of poo and wee.

See, my arguments are intellectual and utterly convincing!

Yes people do use faith as an excuse for some appauling behaviour, my mother is one of them. But do you seriously think that without the church as an excuse these people would be better people for it? Of course not! They would just use some other excuse. Blame the individuals for their crimes please.

And the church are happy to accept anyone of any sexuality. What they have a problem with (broken record time) is the sexual act which they believe to be immoral as gay sex cannot produce a child. Sex = children = nature. They think that it goes against natures own laws to have gay sex as nature did not intend for those bits to be used in that way ifswim!

I can understand their thinking. I personally can see both sides of the argument. As I said I think a loving home is better than a childrens home. But I fully understand their point of view and I don't think it would make any difference to anyone else as there are so many agencies out there to choose from.

Plus this is a bit hypocritical when you consider the fact that Muslim faith schools do discriminate against non-Muslim children. They say they don't but they do. Whereas catholic faith schools have to take children of other faiths too. A case of one rule for one religion (namely the one that scares the pants off everyone) and another for the other one cause they are less scary.

Certainly if you apply any random bigotry, you are cutting yourself off from a source of potentially good parents, and that hurts the kids.
To be fair, I have absolutely no idea if on average gays are better or worse adoptive parents. That's a hard judgement, which needs to be done with a clear head. That's why I'm so insulting to bigots, be they of race or faith.

But there is a bigger picture, if we are to grant exemptions from the law for relgious bigots. We've already seen gays kicked out of hotels on religious grounds and policemen refusing to protect people on religious grounds.

Should Christian barmen be required to serve gays ? What if an obviously gay man comes into a chemist's shop to buy condoms ?
I think we can assume they're not for birth control ?

No one is saying that the bigoted flavour of Christian must help gays, merely that they treat them the same as any other human being.

I personally find the idea of gay sex between men as quite revolting. I just don't think I have any right to punish people for doing it.

DC, the catholic adoption board has very strict criteria. I think that when you are placing potentially disturbed young children with adoptive parents you need to have such a criteria. I welcome that.

Let me ask you this. Currently the church will refuse to give communion to a divorcee because they are guilty of adultery, unless they have their marriage annuled by the church. So is the church denying them their human rights?

If it is, how about mosques where women are not allowed - are they too being denied their human rights?

You see the potential litigation here? You will be paying for all these lawsuits btw.

And have you had a wash today?

Social services have refused to place chidren with potential adopters because:

They are too fat
They do not have enough bedrooms
They do not have enouhg friends
They are to'posh'
and....they are too RELIGIOUS...oooh

You can call anyone a bigot who makes a decision against one group or individual, for their beliefs or life choices. This is what any adoption service does.Has to do.

Which more bigoted?
Can't adopt because your gay? or
Can't adopt because you're religious?

SS no longer place black children with white families. The church is under no such restriction.

It is hypocrisy. But hey, it's only the catholic church, they don't matter!

These are valid and hard questions about how religions treat people who they feel they can victimise.

If there is a difference, it is that members of a religion sign up for a set of rules, as well as the people who enforce them.
Thus it's voluntary.
Boxers agree to have trained athletes hit them repeatedly, at the bottom end they even pay for this privilege. That's not attractive to me, but others want different things.

This is quite different from imposing your will on members of the public who are not members of your group.
Adoption agencies and other christian groups and individuals control things that cause real suffering if denied.
They do this with public money that they quite happly taken, even though they know some of it comes from people they despise.

The SS thing is even worse than that.
I read an advert recently where they wanted adoptive parents from a specific island in the Caribbean.
The problem seems to be both political correctness and trying too hard.
I vet people for jobs, and am pretty good at it, much better than the competition.
I'm right about one in four times

It's very hard to work out what people are really like, and the SS have very little data so over weight the few facts tghey have.
They really really want to get it right, but lack both the information and the intellect to process it with.
Maybe, just maybe christian adoption agencies do a better job. Objectively I can't rule that out.

If they are better (and no I don't know how to measure it), then this makes their threat to stop doing the work as the sort of thing that makes me so disgusted with the actions of Christian groups.
If they are better (and one asumes they believe this), then they are putting their bigotry above the welfareof the kids. They find dealing with occasional gay people so distasteful that they are prepared to leave kids to a process they believe with good reason to be inferior.

But I'm smelly, so who am I to judge people who Ruth Kellly loves so much ?

at that nearlythree. peachy, i agree with everything you say.

ruty you rock.

you think so sophable but you made my day! [should think most people disagree with you though. ]

Rhubarb of course the anti christians are bigots and that's no better either, sorry you feel got at . personally I am nt anti- catholic or anti-anything really, just very, very wary of get out clauses.

But Ruhbarb, the sex=children=nature argument simlpy fails to stand up. It's riddled with logical inconsistencies. Should infertile couples, who cannot have babies as a result, not have sex? What about post-menapausal women? Is the fact that they are having sex even though they cannot have babies as a result a justified cause for denying them the right to adopt?

The idea of gay sex as being 'against nature' is also one that has been consistently proved as false. Penguins anyone?

rams too apparently.