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

[wannaBeWhateverIWannaBe]

or we'll close our

adoption agencies

but isn't one of the points of the catholic adoption society stand is that for them, there aren't a shortage of parents?

I'm not sure how I feel about this. There is a part of me , however, that thinks that we should be allowed to say that we disapprove of x,y, and z without being upbraided.
Do we live in a society now where we have to accept everything, can not disapprove of anything?
Why can't one have these views?
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything atm, but I do question the catch all nature of things.
Why for example is it about human rights when talking about the church not being allowed to discriminate yet surely it infringes on human rights if you tell people they 'can't' discriminate? You are taking away their freedom of view aren't you?
I think the whole area is very dodgy for many different reasons.

sexkittyinwaiting....of course it is ok for you to express your anti gay, anti black, anti woman, anti whatever you want views on mn or anywhere else.

don't expect them to remain unchallenged.

those views ARE being expressed on this thread, so what is your point?

that I (and others) feel that the view is ugly? expression of opinion is fine. changing the law in order to ENABLE discrimination is not.

You know what, I'm confident enough about my sexuality to not let it bother me that the Catholic Church thinks I'm a sinner. People have a right to their beliefs.

But surely the point here is that the Government is not telling churches what they should believe. it is saying that providers of PUBLIC services cannot discriminate on grounds that have been made illegal. Surely that is right: if you are taking money from the public purse you should not be able to discriminate against people surely on the basis of their race, sex, sexual orientation or disability.

I am not a trendy left winger, I do have my own views and I do oppose gay men adopting these 'damaged' children. That is my opinion. Doesn't mean I am wrong just because I don't agree with you. It is supposed to be a healthy debate not a slanging match.

Hester - spot on!

Please, please, on all these threads, can we separate the stance of institutions from ordinary individuals? Plenty of catholics have expressed their disagreement, opposition and embarrassment in the face of the position certain bodies within the church have taken, and only com-plete fu8ndementalists adhere to every tiny detail of doctrine ascribed to any set of beliefs...individual catholics, muslims, labour party supporters, whoever.

2ndhandR: Do you think, then, that children are better off in an institutional care home than in a loving stable home with two dads? If so your belief is at odds with any research, either about looked-after children or about gay parents.

And all the gay couples I know who have adopted (that's 3...it's not such a common occurrence to amass loads of anecdotal experience) have all gladly, willingly, lovingly and sucessfully, taken on 'hard to place' children. Including one who is not expected to live past late teenage-hood.

secondhandrose, can you explain to me how it is that your 'opinion' is NOT bigoted, and also how by challenging it as such I am stifling healthy debate?

just in case you need one here is a definition of bigotry from the OED: 'unreasonably prejudiced and intolerant.'

If you think I'm being grossly unfair, in calling your stance that gay people should not be allowed to adopt children bigoted, could you cite any 'reasonable' evidence that would support your opinion? Reseach? Direct anecdotal experience?

Blu, I've been at pains to demarcate between institutions and individuals....however, it appears that the prejudice is alive and well in many individuals on this website, as well as in the insitutions that they belong to.

What I am still struggling with is whetehr it is right to say that the church can't discriminate. I don't have a particular leaning either way.

would you feel it was ok for the church to discriminate on grounds of race sexykitty? no of course it is not OK for the church to discriminate if the law has deemed that discrimination illegal (never mind the morality of discrimination)!

Sophable - yes, you have...and I agree that individuals who hold any view need to be prepared to account for them, and to encounter people who don't agree.

But discussion and 'bashing' do get mereged sometimes, maybe in haste!

No I don't think that would be acceptable, but they don't say that in the bible, whereas they have a faith issue with homosexuality. As I said I feel very mixed up about this issue. On one hand I don't think it is right to discriminate but on the other hand they have a right to their views and they believe their views to be correct. It is not a simple matter of saying they are wrong and the law is right.

kitty, there is plenty of 'evidence' in the bible for white supremacists too....it is all down to interpretation, otherwise there would be no gay catholics or catholic priests and I can assure you there are many of them. In 21st century Britain, discrimination against people on the grounds of what they choose to do consensually in bed is deemed wrong, and at last this is being enshrined in law...imho, the most senior spokesman of the catholic church is engaged in a thinly veiled attempt to sabotage that legislation.

Blu, am I bashing? hmmm. I feel strongly about homophobia dressed up as people's 'opinions' which they 'have a right to' and being personified as a left-wing trendy witch out to stifle their basic human right to free speech. they can say it, can't I (in the strongest possible terms, as warranted imo by their opinions) dispute it?

Can someone explain something to me?

I know that apparantly the catholic church, like many others, believes the practice of homosexual sex to be sinful or otherwise not acceptable...but that there is a decree to treat homosexual people with respect.

Since adoption is not about any form of sexual act, why does that preclude homosexual people from being adoptive parents? That does seem to be beyond the boundaries of what is actually based on religious belief?

i think you're straying into far too logical territory there blu...the argument that gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt through catholic adoption agencies is not one born of logical argument is it?

tiz muchio difficult this one. dont want an 'opt out' becuase of the wider ramifications of cirum navigating bigotry and putting under the strapline 2its my religeon"

However, the practice of the catholic church was to refer onwards to bodies and institutions who could deal with gay fostering and adoption - should they have been approached.

this seems sensible. and now sensibilty has gone with bathwater out of the window. becuase the new law wouldnt allow the catholic church to 'refer on' becuase it would be discriminatory.

i hope there is a way round this.

Hear hear blu. I am dismayed that the C of E has thrown its mitre into the ring now.
Congregations I have worshipped in all my life have been led by gay parish priests and dependent on the active participation of gay Christians.
I feel very confused and unhappy that the Church I belong to still discriminates at the highest level against practising homosexuals, while relying on gay Christians to keep things going at parish level . And my experience of Catholic friends tells me this goes on in the RC church too.

Custy, you have just clarified something for me perfectly. How sad that this workable solution allowing faith-based and secular agencies to work together for the good of looked-after children has been taken away by the new legislation

plase remember the catholic church refered these cases to specialised agencies - a referal they will not be allowed to make now

this is much different fromt he media hype

there wasnt a " fuck off you homo" catholic policy that lots of people seem to be inferring!

An other wee aside: if Westminster is saying that Scotland cannot opt-out of the "Equality Act" on the basis that any form of discrimination is illegal and that it therefore over-rdies the Scottish agreement that had already gone through the Scottish Parliament on adoption, wherby the catholic agencies agreed to pass on the details to those who owuld deal with gay couples......

.... does this then mean that the discriminatory Act of parliamentthat prohibits a Catholic from being the Monarch is also illegal?

This argument is just going round and round in circles.

Sophable I too am a catholic and I beg to differ, the last Pope DID apologise for WW2 and for the way they have handled paedophile priests. They are trying to reform all of this. But none of this matters to any of you because you seem to be insistant on bringing up the past and not addressing any good points made by others on here.

I can tell you until I'm blue in the face that SS do regularly stop prospective parents from adopting because of reasons such as weight, age etc. Yet this little point is merely brushed to one side whilst the mob screams that the catholic church turf out homosexual couples and are therefore bigots.

This coming from posters who are increasingly sounding bigoted themselves against catholicism.

As Custy said, the church currently refers such couples to other adoption agencies.

But I shall bow out of this as it is clear that some people are baying for blood so there is no point continuing.

Marina, the churches do that all the time particularly as against women. No female Archbishop of Canterbury yet many parishes kept afloat by women.

As custardo says the Catholic chruch is too polite (and scared) to say "fuck off you homos".
I don't see polite bigotry as any better through. Indeed, it seems at variance with their alleged position. If you genuinely believe that gays are bad, why not tell them why you're not dealing with them ?

A good test for whether an act conforms with someone's own personal morality is whether they are happy for other people to know they are doing it.

As for the current pope's apologies.
The WWII wasn't exactly whole hearted was it, and everyone involved is conveniently dead.

As for his church arranging the rape of children, the wrong doers, including himself are still there. Bishops who covered up the rape of children, frustrated police enquiries, and lobbied politician to limit the scope of investigations are still in place.
In North America, bishops who flatly refuse to cooperate with even the church's very low level friendly enquiries don't even get strongly worded emails, let alone the sack.
As for Ratxinger himself, he was responsible for discipline for many years, with such a free hand that he was called the previous pope's rottweiler. Yet rather than sack him, his fellow cardinals voted for him as pope. It's not unfair to suspect that is why they voted for him.

pb, I'm sure it is.
I'd love to do a class action to recover Catholic lands from the C of E/state just like the Nazi confiscations. Would be such fun.

Tempting, but then you'd have to ask how they got the land in the first place.
Not something I think the Catholic church would want aired is it ?
How about compensation claims for the people that the Catholic church tortured to death, or burned alive ? Also the descendants of victims of the varios many wars they started would have claims as well.
Would upset a whole century of spin, where St. Thomas More is actually seen by Christians as a good guy, and where the varios Christian church's role in WWII doesn't get much airing any more.

Here's a bit of trivia:
Who leading figure in Britain was found to be saying that bombing Germany was immoral ?

a) Oswald Moseley, leader of British Fascists ?
b) Geroge Bell, a certain Christian bishop.

Over on the continent bishops and sundry priests were all too happy to bless fascist and Nazi bombers.

good point xenia. DC, I totally agree with you there. Terribly wrong. I just prefer it when you are more specific [accurate?] in your condemnations. Of course the Anglican church has it's own fair share of hypocrisies.

Just to address the 'white supremacist' justification in the bible, I think i could probably justify that God is a lesser spotted purple alien from mars from my interpretation of the bible if I wanted, but that doesn't make it a true interpretation. Reading the bible requires an intellectual and critical faculty, an awareness of cultural and historical context, an interest in languages and above all, a compassionate attitude similar to the one Christ taught. [I am not any of these things BTW, but i know a few people who are!]

In awe of the gay friends you have that have adopted Blu. Terribly sad to think some other children might be losing out because of this ridiculous hypocrisy.