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

[wannaBeWhateverIWannaBe]

or we'll close our

adoption agencies

OK, show me one single study that shows the children of gay parents are disadvantaged. Because all the ones I've seen show the exact opposite.

This is being discussed on the Moral Maze this evening.

Radio 4 8PM.

Have to agree with Aloha. There is a lesbian couple where I work and they have 2 children by IVF (same mother). The children are lovely, well balanced, polite, happy and secure because their primary carers love them unconditionally as do their extended family. There are a lot of children in traditional households who are miserable and would love to have what these children have.

I cheekily asked one of the mothers what she planned to tell them when they start querying their family set up as well as their father's whereabouts and she said that they would tell them that you can't help who you fall in love with and that they really wanted them so a kind man helped to create them.

I think there's this idea here that if these kids aren't taken by gay famillies, they'll be plaenty of toehrs willing to line up? I know two gar foster famillies, both ahve 'difficult to place' kids- both with behavioural / SN issues. Given that these kids would have probably been in care for ever had these famillies not tkaen them in, would it really be so bad for them to adopt them?????? And then on that basis, if its OK for them to take hard to palce kids, why on earth shouldn't they be considered satisfactory parents?

There's not guarantees of anything in this life- you place kids with a 2 parent family of any kind and it could break down by a week next Tueday. The best bet ahs to be a stable couple who love each other. AMrried, gay, whatever. LOVE.

Peachy I was talking to someone about this yesterday and she said it's better for children to grow up in care than with a gay couple for parents.

Because the state has such a great record as a parent, FFS. Why do people think this, I wonder? With a few caveats, I would think that almost anyone is a better parent than the state. Almost anyone. I'd be really interested to hear from anyone who doesn't think that and why, because I couldn't get a coherent explanation of this POV from the person I was talking to yesterday and I honestly felt quite sick and depressed that people think like that so couldn't carry on with the conversation and had to change the subject to Big Brother. If someone can give me a humane interpretation of why this is a valid viewpoint, please let me know.

Faith (any faith) groups are of course beholden to their beliefs / doctrines of their faith - whatever they may be and however they interpret them.

So, really, it cannot be possible for faith based groups to take on 'outsourced' state provision where there is any divergence of poliy, priority or provision. As Custy said below - so the faith based adoption agencies will have to close!

I understand that faith establishments were often the leading source of the philanthropy that in some cases transfoemed into the welfare state..but things are different now.

THe next few para's are actually something my dh has written (he's much cleverer than me) with which I agree.

?Discrimination? is a word that has become troubled by the tension between its two meanings: positively, the ability to make a choice as to which is the better of two options (discriminating between); and, negatively, the persecution of those who differ from us because they differ from us (discriminating against).

There is a significant difference between equality legislation and anti-discrimination legislation; between an equality position, or ideology, and an anti-discrimination position, or ideology. Equality recognises that the rights of people who differ from us in some way need to be affirmed. Anti-discrimination fails to recognise that the rights of people who differ from us in some way need to be affirmed.

Anti-discrimination by necessity simply shifts the focus or direction of discriminating against another, because it denies the possibility of discriminating between two groups; whereas equality deconstructs the act of discriminating against another, by affirming the possibility of discerning between two groups. Equality says, you are as good as me. Anti-discrimination says, you need to recognise that I am better than you.

It strikes me that the Roman Catholic position is an equality position: they acknowledge the right of homosexual couples living in a secular society that affirms civil partnerships in law to adopt children; and want to refer such couples to the secular social services adoption agencies who can assist them to do so. On the other hand, it strikes me that those who oppose the Roman Catholic position hold an anti-discrimination position: they do not see room for a group within society who hold a view different to their own, and oppose the right to hold, as a matter of conscience, a different view.

One of the marks of a mature society is the willingness to affirm those who differ from us, as opposed to the insistence of homogeneity, or uniformity. Another mark of a mature society is its capacity to uphold exemptions in law. For example, women living in the UK have a legal right to the termination of pregnancy. However, GPs are not required to perform this procedure: some will advise women, and refer them to another GP if they wish to proceed; some will advise but not even refer. And that is considered acceptable, as a matter of conscience. Neither the legal right of women nor the moral right of medics are violated.

Moving from society as a whole to groups within society, if we are secure in our identity, we will take a stand to ask that we are respected by those who differ from us; but beyond that we will not see the need to demand our rights. Instead, we will lay down our rights, and take a stand for the rights of others. If we are secure in our identity, we will not need to belittle those who differ from us.

I am neither a Roman Catholic nor a homosexual. But I would want to respect both ? which first requires a commitment to love both, because it is not possible to respect someone you do not love, however inadequately; and all the more so when you disagree with them on issues that matter to you. And I would want to affirm the right of homosexuals to be served by adoption agencies, and the right of Roman Catholic adoption agencies to serve homosexuals by referring them to other agencies. That would seem to me the measured response our multi-cultural, multi-ideological society needs and yet appears to be lacking?

Now I can see that view, I really can BUT if we follow that...... so many other groups could claim other exemptions. remember, slavery was justified by Christians and Jews (The Vurse Of Ham- Ham being the son of Noah who saw him naked and was thereafter cursed to lead a life of slavery for all the generations; held by Christians to eb the father of Black NAtions, at the time). Should we have given them exemption based on equality? No, I don't think so.

The problem is that we live in a Secular Society where the law of Governemnt is held to be the controlling law, not that of religions.

Equality is a noble aim with much to be said for it, but its wrongly applie dif it allows exemption from law. Equality should be pursued in the manner of the law pertaining to all people equally.

It is rightly the case that nobody, gay straight or unable to decide is allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion- that includes gay people against Catholics. Or Muslims, Jews, CofE, Presbyterians etc etc etc. This has to be a reciprocal right: the freedom from discrimination against the person based on their personal law abiding decisions. If it starts to be the case that one group gains an exemption, what is stop another group applying for that? Maybe a Muslim would like to prevent a Hindu working for him on the grouns of belief? or a Jain might want to prevent people who eat meat from using their business? All these things are prescribed in their l religions. Where do we draw the line.

For me, the most positive outcome is simple: adoptions agencies shouldn't be run outside the control of social services anyway. And each palcement should be absed on the family integrity, nnot colour, religion, age, marital status or sexual preference.

If the catholics want a controlling say in Government, like the rest of us they have to form a political party, and be voted in. That is the option open to uas all as citizens.

Purpleturtle I apologise to you and your Dh for my typing- my vision isn't good and the light is a bit strong this AM.

I think we simply have to face up to the fact that many traditional church doctrines are simply not acceptable in a modern society.

Almost all religions have a "stone to death non-believiers" clause, which for most of their history was enacted with great vigour.

But all Christian churches in England (but not America) have given up this, and now view that the Inquistion, crusades, holocausts, et al were bad things. Indeed the Catholic church emits propaganda that the Inquisition was exaggerated.

Christian churches have given up the right to have non-believers locked up, though this was held grimly onto until the 1970s.

Several religions have explicit racism in their core, and that's not just Judaism. Sikhism is a race based religion, and many Moslems aren't exactly fond of Jews.
Our society tries quite hard to stop these views being expressed as violence, and nearly all of their leaders have quite voluntarily ignored these unambiguous and long held tenets of their faith.
All British kids get taught about the Tudor times when relgious groups got free reighn outside the law. hint : "Bloody Mary" wasn't called this for he love of vodka cocktails.

British society has been forcing relgious groups to behave better for a couple of centuries now. They whinge about it of course, but equality before the law is the most important basic part of civil liberties.

i think you put it very well Peachy.

The often spouted line that church doctrine (which is held to be God's doctrine) should change to accomodate society's changing tastes and predilections, if looked at logically, is a nonsense. I fail to understand how anyone, regardless as to whether they believe or not, can expect church teachings to change if it is accepted that they believe these to come from God. Obviously human beings have adopted different ways and means of enforcing these teachings over the centuries which can clearly be open to criticism.

Well then Roobie the Catholic church should be damning people who eat shellfish and anything with hooves.

Except that the New Testament explicitly deals with that issue.

That's not catholic doctrine

I think I take issue with the fact that the Catholic Church has been accused of blackmail on this issue, when I just see them responding to the same kind of demand. The government has said, 'do it our way, or not at all' and the church has said, 'we'd rather not do it than do it your way'. So in actual fact, both parties are saying the same thing, but we're only allowed to vilify one of them.

don't you think, if it was such a crucial part of God's laws, that Christ would have been at pains to point out that gay love is wrong? Instead he preached at length about not judging and not being self righteous. The reason people in the church have traditionally been against homosexuality is because it is something alien and therefore abhorrent to them, just as it is to some people outside the church. It has nothing to do with Faith.

The church teachings come from the apostles who were sent out by Jesus - not everything Jesus said is in the bible, it was left to the apostles to start the church.

The teaching, like it or not, is that sex is to be confined to marriage so anyone who is unmarried, gay or straight, should behave in the same way. The church doesn't condemn anyone for being gay - it is the physically expression that is regarded as wrong (as is any kind of physical expression outside marriage). A sin is a sin in the eyes of the church - a practising gay is no more sinful than a heterosexual person engaging in sexual activity outside marriage.

Hi- I'm a lesbian Mum and I'm enjoying the discussion here. It is heartening how supportive many of you MNetters are. I've only just joined and was a bit suspicious of entering such a seemingly 'straight' arena (bit like parenthood).
I'm a new Mum, but my partner and I love our baby boy very much and have gone through a lot to have him. Strange when you feel you have to justify your entirely normal urge for children because other people think your relationship is abnormal.
Looking forward to the day when it will not be an 'issue'- we are just people, people!

The only mention of homosexuality in the NT is in St Paul, Romans, I think. This is more a reference to promiscuity, gay or otherwise. Also, St Paul said that women should not speak in church and should have their heads covered because otherwise they would get the angels randy. I mean some of this stuff it seems acceptable not to adhere to, but not the fact that gay people have a right to have relationships. it is ridiculous and belies an unchristian like bigotry [not that i am a good christian at all]

good for you charliegal!

Ruty I agree- especially given the time contexts of the Bible and the sexual behaviours of the romans. If they truly viewed homosexuality as a sin, then there'd be huge books on it, not just a few vague mentions in levicticus (how many of the other rules in Levicticus do catholics follow, BTW? ).

DC_ RE your somment on Sikhs.... the whole point of their meal after Gurdwara, which is sahred freely with allcomers, is to erdicate social boundaries sucha s cast and class. A model of tolerance (given the caste / class syetm in India) rather than a racialist religion perhaps?

If it's sex outside marriage the church is objecting to, then why doesn't it just allow gay people to get married?

Given that they accept that being gay isn't merely a lifestyle choice...

If it's because sex is only for procreation, then it does rather back up DC's idea that lots of stuff religions say are just a reflection of the time the religions were founded and are totally out of date now.

Not sure about Jesus mentioning homosexuality btw. As a Jewish teacher, it would have been so obvious to him that homosexuality was a big no-no, that he wouldn't have needed to mention it. It would have been taken as self-evident.

i disagree Caligula. He turned a lot of the Jewish laws upside down. I think he chose to not to talk about it, not even once, for a reason, and chose to talk about other things that would make judging gay people, and judging others, very difficult. I also think he knew he was teaching people in a particular culture and time frame, and only gave them as much as they could take, if you see what i mean.
[BTW Roobie, didn't mean you were bigoted, but the church teachings. ]