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

[wannaBeWhateverIWannaBe]

or we'll close our

adoption agencies

like this lot:

here

I'm off to pray for you all.

and yourself rhubarb.

has anyone else read nick robinson's blog that i posted the link to?

Pray for the poor catholics who are so hated by the bigots in their church

so where do gay catholics go when they want to adopt a child?

is this a joke enid

no

we have established that there ARE gay catholics

so I expect some of them may want to adopt at some stage

perhaps they are among the 96% of people whose adoptions are not arranged by catholic agencies.

Anyone notice how the other major religions (ie Judaism, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh)have not been villified in the same way as the Catholics because they are too cowardly to raise their head above the pulpit? At least the Catholics are standing up for what they believe and I do wonder if they are being discriminated against (as well as being bullied) for their beliefs?

I see both sides of the argument and personally don't see why Catholic agencies cannot be allowed to refer gay couples to other agencies. Doctors are allowed to opt out of carrying abortions because of their beliefs but they are allowed to pass on referrals. Why not the same here?

this thread has taken an interesting turn.

Caligula, it is impossible to say that Christ thought practising gay people immoral because he did not mention it. What one can say is that taking his whole philosophy and teachings into account, I think [and so do many theologians who know much more than i do] that it was completely against everything he stood for to single out somebody for loving somebody else. Christ was not really interested in people's sex lives - he was interested in equality and social justice. He took a prostitute and adulterer as his disciple [i would argue this has been edited out of the church's doctrine -I am not talking Da Vinci code!] Promiscuity is mentioned quite a bit in the bible - and promiscuity is generally seen as something between men and between men and women. Monogomous gay relationships are not really addressed, i think because it was all a but Queen Victoria, if we don't mention them they don't exist!

Gosh, 'Lust' is a sin? any sex that is solely for enjoyment is sinful? so why don't the catholic apdoption agencies prevent their children going to couple who use contraception? Is it because they deem some forms of 'sin' more 'sinful'than others? A lot of double standards going on. BTW not catholic bashing, the anglican church has just as much of this hypocrisy going on.

didn't mean to kill the thread with my ramblings.

I likes what nick robinson had to say bossykate.

And you spidermama

spidermama or speedymama?

speedymama. Sorry.

I knew I should have scrolled up to check, but ds2 was feeding and I risked it.

sorry

No worries .

It's not often I agree with Nick Robinson but on this ocassion, I do.

People who are desperate to discriminate against people on the grounds of something that is part of them and they cannot change - ie their sexuality - ARE mean minded bigots. And there are plenty of them in all religions, as I pointed out several times.

the venomous anti-catholic messages, not just on this particular thread but on mumsnet as a whole really shock me. Why the hell is it so wrong for a religion that's 2000 years old to make a stand for what they believe in? Should they just blindly accept everything the modern world throws its way on the grounds it's modern?

It's not like no baby/child will be adopted and no gay couple will ever be able to adopt again.

Heavens forbid anyone say anything rascist, or against muslims, but the Catholic Church is fair game

Um, apologies if this question has already been asked, as I've not read all of the thread! (sorry)

Some people have stated that they think the Church's objection is based on the fact that sex is only supposed to be within marriage, and therefore because gay people cannot marry, they cannot place children with them.

So, are the Adoption agencies going to refuse to place children with heterosexual couples who are not married too?

If the whole basis for refusal is lack of marriage, (and therefore a life of sin?), then surely they should apply this to unmarried straight couples too.

I've not seen anything in the news which indicates to me that they have that intention, so doesn't it suggest that their discrimination lies in another reason

Do they accept applications from unmaried couples? Married couples and single people yes, but I'm not sure about unmarried couples.

exactly kateandfelicity.

what about married couples who use contraception?

Four out of five CofE bishops voted against the equality legislation. As I said, nasty, mean minded bigots, and a fantastic argument for the abolition of the House of Lords.

I've often wondered abouth this 'sexuality is something you are born with' position.

Why is homosexuality like this but not paedophilia? Or other sexual orientation?

I am NOT comparing them beyond this, I am not anti homosexual and think they should adopt.
(interesrting my need to give my credentials)
This part of the debate I think however, is not proven, get seems to be beyond question, yet flawed.

Unless some one can explain it to me.

I also notice that it is seen as OK to talk about religion in history in terms of education, charity etc, but not to mention religion's rather less attractive history of murder, child abuse, bigotry and oppression.