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

[wannaBeWhateverIWannaBe]

or we'll close our

adoption agencies

I actually posted a couple of references further down the thread showing that gay adoptions were often BETTER for children.

not the argument

no one is saying its better or worse.

No I don't. But what if it is the choice between 2 gay men and an equally strong, calm, sorted heterosexual couple? Should it just be a choice based on the closest skin colour?

You aren't Custy - you have been clear about discrimination - but Ladymuck is doubtful

WEll, you know ladymuck - that's just it - the sexuality that holds the relationship together is not necessarily the main issue in the decision.

Anyway, funnily enough, given, i suspect, the iniquities of the SS system I mentioned below, all the 3 gay adoptive couples i know have adopted 'hard to place' children, and were never offered small babies. And since there are so many of those children in homes isn't it obvious that there are not enough coules of an kind offereing to adopt them? So the dilemma you pose sounds very unlikely to me.

this argument was on some debating programme with that newsreader on more 4 or sommat

anyroad up.... his question " all things being equal, wouldnt a child be better lpaced with a hetrosexual couple"

well when the fuck are all thing ever equal?

ever?

the question was misleading as is the standpoint.

a caring relationship and the wellbeing of the child.

whether your two green aliens from planet zog, as long as the kid feels loved

one parent.

one one legged parent

one gay one legged parent

if the kid feels loved and is well looked after. thats all that matters

but the point i am making is that all things are never equal - in an ideal world - questions are misnomas

Sorry - in case clarification is needed of my views, then I do think that people regardless of sexual orientation should have the right to adopt. However I do think that the sexual orientation impacts the adoption, and feel uncomfortable with a law that would indicate that in looking at what is best for the child we totally ignore the sexual orientation of the parents. So in short I disagree with pph's assertion that "parents' sexuality does NOT have any direct bearing on a child's sense of self", particularly in the case of gay partnerships. It may in some respects even be a positive bearing, but I don't think that it should be ignored, especially when race isn't.

right 'o' sounds perfectly resonale to me

rhubarb [sophable bangs head repeatedly against wall]....justifying the church's stance on gay adoption.

[utterly exasperated emoticon]

Thanks for that clarification , LM.
It's a bit different though. Race is something that is identifiable with from birth onwards - whereas sexuality is (arguably) not even detectable in childhood, and since biological parents often have children who are of a different sexuality from them it is natural that children grow up with different sexualities from their parents. Whereas the racial background of a biological family generally links them together. (didn't stop a hairdresser doing a double take and saying 'is he your little boy?' and then commenting 'oh, it's just that he looks just like an Asian boy''. Yes, he would, he takes after his dad...).

Teenage boy on the news being long-term fostered by middle-aged lesbians. Obviously he was hard to place, being a bit spotty oik of a teenage boy, but they loved him and he was so happy with his foster parents, in a family at last. If any god thinks that's not a good outcome, why would anyone worship that god? Surely if you disagree that god thinks like that, you should be fighting your church, not the law. That's what I will never understand about this.

I really liked Cameron's clear and unambiguous stand on this.

yes Aloha. I find that baffling too.

Dear sophable, have some arnica for your head!

I shall state again that I do not agree with the Church's stance on gay adoption. I think heterosexuals can make shite parents just as much as homosexuals can. BUT I can understand why the church feels the way it does.

I have never said in this thread that I agreed with them. I put their point of view forward and tried to give a balanced view of the church and point out the positives that they do as people seemed hellbent on showing the church in a negative light.

You can show any organisation in a negative light. Why not just scrap organisational bodies? They all make mistakes and they are all corrupt.

Has your head stopped hurting now?

And that Rhubarb, is why I haven't attacked you!!!!

But sophable, don't you get it? Every time we make a point about the good things the church does, someone screams "child abuse!" as if it's our fault! And I say our because as a member of the catholic church then any attack on the church does feel quite personal.

We could tear apart any organisation and find skeletons in their closets. No profession is safe from paedophilia and there are plenty of other organisations that have handled such abuses very very badly. In fact SS themselves have had lots of criticism for the way they happily take children from loving parents without investigating properly, and leaving other children with abusive parents.

I don't feel that it is fair to make out that it is just the catholic church who have these scandals. The church can apologise until it is blue in the face but it seems that some hatchets are hard to bury.

Actually, sod it, how about starting a new religion? We could call it The Church of the Mumsnet. What rules shall we have then?

Why do you feel it should not be personal ?
If I belonged to any organisation and it's senior members did such terrible things, my emotions would be a mixture of anger and shame.

The Catholic church has a lot of people, so you'd expect the normal % of bad behaviour of all kinds. But in the child rape cases, as an organisation it helped the bad people commit more crimes and covered them up.

This is quite difference to the way you can't have any large outfit without bad people in it.

The church's response has been flaccid, and mostly geared at yet more cover ups, and waiting for the fuss to die down.

The church could not respond in this way if it's members did not tacitly agree. Noter the villification of people like myself who bring it up.

The obvious response is did any MNer who feels she should havc a pop at me, vent any anger at her bishop ?
Why not ?

The obvious implication is that their faith sees someone who has been quite dilligent at pointing out acknowledged truth is the bad guy, whereas the senior staff in the Catholic and CoE churches who aiede and abetted the rape of children are merely "bystanders" who should be defended.

Oh i give up.

Actually, DC does have a point.

Church members should be lobbying their bishops to ensure that any abuse is not covered up.

OK last try.
DC, there are many people in both the Catholic and Anglican churches fighting against hypocrisy and the mistakes of some of their leaders. You think they should leave the church altogether I know. I have often asked my Dad, and Anglican priest who has been fighting for various things such as Women priests [and now women bishops] for decades, why he stays within an organisation so full of hypocrisy and corruption. He tells me he feels it is better to try to work and make changes from within, though he finds it very hard. I know you have zero respect for people like him and that is entirely within your rights. I am sorry you feel villified but I'm a bit surprised you make so many generalized and often inaccurate statements about things without expecting to upset people.
Oh whatever.

agree absolutely with that caligula. Not that i am trying to make the anglican church out to be any better than the catholic church, but DC you talk about widespread organisation of the rape of children in the Anglican church too. Do you have any proof of this? I know of a few cases, and there are probably some more that i do not know about. I do not know of any widespread organised paedophilia by senior members as you suggest. So please back up your accusations with proof. the majority of priests in the catholic and anglican church are genuinely good people working hard to improve the lives of people around them. but forget about them, eh?

Actually, I do think an organisation where the rape of children was covered up right from the top is a very, very serious matter, and the fact that there are lots of nice people in it too is not the point. For example, I will never, ever vote Labour as long as Margaret Hodge is a labour MP, because she was involved in the systematic cover up of child rapes in Islington council's care department.

I agree Aloha that Catholics should be in uproar about it and senior members involved should be forced to step down. I agree with that absolutely. But the Catholic Church has a whole can't just shut down. That's all.

Fair enough. I don't expect the Labour party to disband either, just ditch Hodge!