Re: gay adoption
 

According to a recent poll 37% of young British Muslims would like to see the introduction of Sharia law in Britain.

Would the people calling for exemptions from the Discrimination Bill for Catholics, demand the same rights, and prejudices, of other faith groups such as Muslims, also to have exemptions from British law?

Interesting to note that the Muslim Council of Britain has given its backing for the demand for the Cathoic Church to be exempt from providing adoptions to same sex, and unmarried couples

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/...n_page_id=1770


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...cle2186511.ece

Re: gay adoption
 

Religion has had way too much influence on legislation and it's about time it stopped.

We're supposed to be living in a civilised society for crying out loud.

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

Here's a Catholic Priest who believes an anti-cervical cancer drug shouldn't be given to women, because it encourages promiscuity!

Thank goodness he's in America, or people here would be demanding he had a right to interfere with people's lives, and should have exemptions from the law.


http://spirit-and-life.blogspot.com/...eption-of.html

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

It comes down to principles.

You have anti-discrimination laws that are applicable to everyone, or you don't.

Once you start making any exceptions you start on a slippery slope, that will be open to abuse.

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

Tony Blair given the catholic church 2 years to conform to gay adoption law.
Personally I'd be all for it anyway.

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

Happily this has been resolved, and the Catholic Church now has until the end of 2008 to decide what they want to do.

Discrimination of any kind is unacceptable in a modern, secular country.

As stated earlier, if all faith group's prejudices and beliefs were to be exempt from the law of the land, there would be chaos.

"Islamists deny human rights to gays. An attempt by the United Nations to include gay people in anti-discrimination measures is being derailed by a coalition of Islamic countries. UN sources said that Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia were doing everything in their power to stop the resolution. They hope to delay the vote long enough to kill it off entirely. Secretary of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association in Britain, George Broadhead, commented that all Muslim countries outlawed homosexuality, and the penalties for those convicted ranged from prison, flogging, execution by a variety of perverted methods – such as throwing the victim off a cliff or pushing a stone wall on to them. "The record of these countries on human rights in general is bad enough, but when it comes to gay human rights, they are disgusting""
NSS Newsline 2003 Apr 25

Re: gay adoption
 

Let's hope this never becomes a muslim country. :(

Re: gay adoption
 

The heir to the throne already wants to be defender of 'faiths', rather than just faith, meaning the Church of England.

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

I too would defend anyone's rights to their own religious beliefs, but if they happened to endager the freedoms of others, and by that I just don't mean homosexuals, then I would fight it every step of the way from happening in this country.

Re: gay adoption
 

that is completely NUTS it mirrors the BNP. no wonder some folks are prejudice.

Re: gay adoption
 

Strangely enough David Cameron today compared some Muslim groups, which included the Muslim Council of Britain, a body which has advised the current government's policies, to extreme right wing groups such as the BNP, and their mirrored intolerances.

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/index_299f...4ff107a9d.html

Re: gay adoption
 

It will be intersting to see if Tony and Cheri get the Papel/Papal knighthoods they have been groveling for

Re: gay adoption
 

jeez cashy thinkin like a bloody tory.:eek:

Re: gay adoption
 

strange one that! there were stories about 30-40 years ago about the conservatives secretly funding the BNP,has the leopard changed its spots?

Re: gay adoption
 

i fear i may have joined this conversation a little late as it seems to have evolved rather rapidly, however here's my twopenneth for what it's worth.
for one i have no problem with gay couples adopting children i believe same sex partnerships can provide just as loving a home to a child as any however i do see one small problem. And that is the general wellbeing of the child among his/her peers. As we well know children can be cruel and heartless creatures (not all mind you) and at the first sign of another child being "different" are quick to jump on this and could leave the said child wide open to abuse and bullying.and although the adopted child may grow to be more tolerant of such things as gay relationships in some cases it may swing the other way(no pun intended) and leave the child with quite severe issues.

and point number 2. imho it would be impossible to even consider exemption of any kind for any organisation from these new laws as to even consider it is to leave the door wide open for anybody and his dog to say i'm exempt from being prejudiced and i can do/say what i like (well if it's good enough for them why not everyone else). how can you possibly build a society on a system of one rule for one and another for everyone else(hmmmm sounds familiar).

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

The basic difference is that marriages can have a religious component, which is in addition to the civil component set up under law. Adoptions don't. If memory serves, the Catholic Church regards marriage as a sacrament. Adoption is not a sacrament. While religions may have adoption agencies, they do not have legal or religious jurisdiction over the adoption. It's a comparison of apples and oranges.

Marriages can happen in a church. Adoptions cannot (at least, not in the USA - I'm assuming that the UK is the same?).

Re: gay adoption
 

Why is it that some people, in fact, many people cannot just accept that everyone can have an opinion about something that may be different to theirs in whole or in part and then set out and attack a differing opinion?

After all it does state at the head of each thread: “common sense in here please. Decent serious discussions to be enjoyed by everyone!”

This thread is a typical example. Mancie opened the thread with a simple question. Should the Catholic Church be exempt from the proposed adoption laws? Although his way of phrasing the question was different.

I made my views quite clear but views are not much use unless they are qualified with reasons, so I also gave my reasons. That is called HAVING AN OPINION. So did other contributors.

And what happens next? Arguments about who is right and who is wrong that degenerated into name calling in an attempt to belittle what was an honest opinion by someone and in one case casting disgusting allegations.

If nothing else the thread gets dragged off topic and no moderator steps in to bring it back on topic.

Is it too much to ask that everyone respects the OPINION of another and they just present their own OPINION without all the nastiness that happens? Thus anyone reading the whole thread can make a balanced judgement on the issue and decide for themselves if they need to change their opinion or not.

I guess maybe it is!

Re: gay adoption
 

One of the most spirited and illuminating threads. By the time I got to it it was already quite long and I have spent more time reading it than I actually had to spare this afternoon. But it was worth it. What a can of worms this topic unleashed! Interesting stuff.

Re: gay adoption
 

There were a lot of people arguing all different points in this argument and the only one that is crying abuse is you. Can I suggest that it is possibly your tone that sets people off so that they either a) want to lighten the mood or b) disagree with your points in the same tone that you write?

Re: gay adoption
 

Gay and lesbian couples should not be allowed to adopt children even if a gay man’s sperm is used with a volunteer woman or a lesbian is impregnated artificially by a donor.

OK! Fire away!

No amount of vetting will tell if the prospective adopter is likely to try and groom a child Gayle.

And now I’m going to bed. I’m not running away I’m just kna oh! I mean tired.[quote Jambutty]









By posting inflamatory views like that, and hinting that people might not agree with you, it's no suprise the majority of people who've posted in this thread disagree with you.

It isn't quite the attack your paranoia seems to think it is.

You have made your point, albeit with no facts to back up some of your claims, and the fact that the majority of posters don't agree with you, does not constitute an attack.

Re: gay adoption
 

Hmmmm - I wonder what would happen (if that were the case) to a lesbian ex-neighbour of mine who gave birth to and brought up a lovely daughter all on her own after splitting with her partner? Would that child have been wrenched away from her loving natural mother? :confused:

Re: gay adoption
 

Anti-Gay Arguments Unfounded
Opponents of gay adoption use several arguments to make their case. First, they say children who are denied the unique contributions of a father and mother experience developmental complications. An anti-gay group, Concerned Women for America, argues, "Homosexual couples compound adopted children's distress by denying them a parent of one of the sexes and then exposing them on a daily basis to a homosexual relationship."[ix] Opponents of gay adoption assert that children of gay and lesbian parents are more vulnerable to teasing and harassment, and that the resulting damage to the child's self-esteem is contrary to the best interests of the child. Studies have been conducted which disprove this theory. Ellen Perrin's 2005 research concluded that children growing up in same-sex households do not necessarily have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes.

Gay adoption opponents also argue that children with gay or lesbian parents will become gay, or develop terrible psychological problems. According to the American Family Association, children of gay parents are exposed to "a lifestyle scientifically proven to increase children's exposure to...mental illness, life-threatening disease...plus the documented risk that the children themselves will be more likely to engage in homosexual behavior as adults."[x] In fact, children with gay parents display the same incidence of homosexuality as the general population of the U.S. According to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, "on measures of psychosocial well-being, school functioning, and romantic relationships and behaviors, teens with same-sex parents are as well adjusted as their peers with opposite-sex parents. A more important predictor of teens' psychological and social adjustment is the quality of the relationships they have with their parents."[xi]

A third common argument against gay adoption is based solely on fear. Some claim that children raised by gay parents are more likely to be sexually abused. This is a misrepresentation of the highest order. According to Concerned Women for America, children of gay parents are more at risk because "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population...and slightly more than half of [lesbians] reported they had been abused by a female lover/partner."[xii] These figures are misleading because they surveyed the entire gay and lesbian population, rather than focusing on those couples that were in a monogamous relationship and ready for parenting. In addition, there is no legitimate scientific research connecting homosexuality and pedophilia.[xiii] In a 1994 study involving 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two of the offenders were gay. In cases involving molestation of a boy by a man, seventy-four percent of the men were in a heterosexual relationship with the boy's mother or a female relative. The study concluded that "a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual."








http://online.logcabin.org/issues/re...-families.htmlhttp://img.getactivehub.com/dawn/cus...in/tranpix.gif http://img.getactivehub.com/dawn/cus...in/tranpix.gif http://img.getactivehub.com/dawn/cus...in/tranpix.gif

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

Something occured to me - one of the arguments is that gay couples will teach their adopted child gayness - bringing out the statistics to show that it makes no difference is one thing but I have another point ------

Why does it matter? Even if having gay adopted parents DID produce a gay child, why is that in the least bit relevant? What exactly is wrong with having another gay person in the world?

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

The Lancashire Telgraph reported last night, that the Government was not making any exceptions for the Catholic Church or anyone else, But Tony Blair said they would get 21 months to prepare for the change calling this "a sensible compromise" (apologies if this has already been posted as I have just crawled out of bed)

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

Or, perhaps those agencies will just continue to exist, but with the connection to the Catholic Church severed? While closure is one option, I don't think that it is the only choice.

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

Right When You Lot Have Stopped Waffling On About This.....it Doesnt Really Matter What We Think, Yes We All Have Our Own Opinions And Rightly So, But We Cant Change A Things Can We? Its Up To Those Pratts In The Church, And If The Wazzocks In Parliament Got There Fingers Out They Would See There Would Be No Harm In It :D *shaz takes a deep breath and wanders off*

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

i am all for gay adoption, but when it comes down to it willow it all goes through parliament, everything in life does

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

Why have you registered to a discussion forum then?

Re: gay adoption
 

she has no vocal chords and can only comunicate via typing etc.

she does have a machine however that sounds like steven hawkings , i think its called speak & spell :D

Re: gay adoption
 

Change the governing documents to provide for a different way of running these agencies and sever the connection. Over time, the staffing would presumably become less Catholic.

Example - My college was, in its early days, founded and governed under the auspices of the Congregational Church, as were many of the earliest American colleges, including Harvard and Yale. In those early days, their primary function was to educate clergymen, so the connection made great sense. Over time, the educational function changed, and these schools managed to thrive when the link with the church was severed.

Hypothetically, if the Mormon church decided to sever their links with the genealogical research facilities they have established (and they are very, very good), there would be no particular reason that these facilities would necessarily cease to function. They get a lot of use from Mormons and non-Mormons alike, and could well find a way to survive and thrive.

If there is a will to continue, combined with a real societal need for the services, no reason I can see that the agenices would have to fold.

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

But all the data is very portable, so there is nothing that would require it to remain on church premises, apart from the "That's how it's always been done factor."

As so much of the data is computerized these days, moving it is not a huge problem. Also, if memory serves, the site in Salt Lake City is on church premises, but in its own building. No reason that the building could not be sold. Or, the areas housing Family History Centres could be let to whoever operated them.

There are any number of possible solutions to changing how geneological research (or adoption agencies) might be run in different ways. My ideas are, frankly, pretty simple solutions but they serve to show how these operations might be severed.

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

Again, if the link were severed, anything could change. Who owns and runs it, whether it is run by volunteers or paid staff, whether it is non-profit or not, etc., etc. Just because it has been run in one way for a long time, it does not necessarily follow that it will always be so. In any case, I was using the geneological resrouces as an illustrative example, so let's not wander too far afield.

For the adoption agencies, if the link with the Catholic Church is severed, almost anything could change. If there are other adoption agencies that could pick up the slack, perhaps the Catholics agencies would terminate activities. If not, then it might make very good sense for the agencies to continue operations, albeit without the direct connection to the church.

As the old maxim goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat! (Although my pal Barnaby prefers to keep wearing his handsome fur coat, despite occasional hairballs):)

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

Willow, I answered that one previously.

Very much in the same way that a business spins one of its operations. It's not as though this is a very new or startling idea.

Re: gay adoption
 

I saw your previous answer - I don't understand why you're quoting me again. :confused:

Re: gay adoption
 

Sorry, didn't mean to quote the same bit again. My mistake.

Not at all. There is no particular reason why the new agency would have to be staffed by non-Catholics. While the Catholic Church may, as a matter of church policy, not want to work with gay couples who wish to adopt, I know many individual Catholics who would have no objection. Also, given that there is a transition period, it would provide any current staffers time to find another position, as well as allowing the agency to fill any vacancies with new staffers who are prepared to work under the new laws.

Another interesting alternative....there is no reason why the Catholic Church could not work with another religious organization (one that would be willing to abide by the new laws, of course) to handle the transition.

If there are other agencies serving the same area, again there are a myriad of possibilities. To give a few examples - The Catholic Church could close its agency and let the chip fall where they may, or could choose to finish the cases they are currently working (at any date during the transition period) and not take on new ones, or they could let one of the other agencies take over the Catholic agency.

I believe that there are lots of possible outcomes, other than merely having the Catholic agency close up shop. Obviously, it will not be quite the same as it is today. But then, very little in this world remains unchanged for long.

Re: gay adoption
 

It sounds a bit like Trigger's broom! :D

Given that they 'work on' cases without a time limit and have always been available to support the adoptee families for years after the legalities of the adoption proceedure have been completed then 21 months would hardly cover that. I can't help wondering if there will be something else in place to help the families who have adopted difficult to place children and who have relied on the follow-up support.

I agree that there are a lot of possible outcomes and I just hope that whatever happens the children don't suffer as a result. By that I mean the children who have already been placed for adoption by the agency which will no longer be there as before to support them.

Re: gay adoption
 

'But Peter Smith, the Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff, said it cost agencies about £20,000 to select and train each family to adopt.

The government then repaid the money if a local authority agreed to a couple's suitability.'


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6289301.stm


Not quite the act of selfless charity, it first appears to be.

Re: gay adoption
 

This was taken out of the same article as garinda posted earlier, regarding the repayment of £20,000 aprox needed to 'process' the applicants.
The answer is in the above statements, either abide by the law or get out of the 'ballpark'.

Re: gay adoption
 

Now theres a thought , Politicians as the moral guardians of the nation

:D :D :D

Re: gay adoption
 

Mmmmmm:rolleyes:

Wonder which I'd pick?

A democratically elected government, who can be voted out every four of five years, or an unelected head of State, and the church she is head of, as my moral guide?

:D

Re: gay adoption
 

well.........its straying from the original theme of the thread .......but I think I would prefer to follow someone with no vested interests, I think most of the Popes in the past were fairly uncorruptable, one or two were a bit over the top ( the Borgias )and one or two of our Kings/Queens were a bit iffy but on the whole they haven't done a bad job, the present one , mothering skills aside hasn't done a bad job ( poor genes from the foriegn side of the family)

Re: gay adoption
 

Fidel Castro has outlived quite a few popes in his time steeljack how about settling for him as a compromise:D.

Re: gay adoption
 

I've allways had a soft spot for Uncle Fidel :D but dont tell Bullseyebarb , I actually gave her karma today , seems we have more in common than I thought :D :D :D :D and she doesn't threaten me with violence :D :D

i've also had a soft spot for uncle Joe

Re: gay adoption
 

I noticed you gave our 'barb' some karma you sure are "having a nice day":D.

Re: gay adoption
 

Well apart from the store being out of Bushmills :eek: and having to switch to Jamesons :confused: (fienian stuff) ..... which caused me to have a snippy fit and berate the burqa clad owners wife ( most liquor stores in California are muslim owned , strange contradiction i know )

Re: gay adoption
 

Also from the same article:



Now why on earth should there be such an imbalance? Could it be that the secular agencies are not so keen to take on the difficult to place children with all the follow up necessary to support those families? I hope they will do so from now on and that those children don't end up spending their childhood entirely 'in care'.

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

Without appearing to be too anti-Catholic here, a Pope who carries on encouraging poor people in third world countries to have large families, thus keeping them in a poverty trap, and a Pope (John Paul II) who when under pressure, finally issued a Papal edict that condoms could be used to help prevent the spread of HIV, as long as they had a pin prick in the end?

Moral guidance my aunt Fanny.

Re: gay adoption
 

Re: gay adoption
 

...and don't forget that before he became the current Pope this is the man whose job it was to cover up the scandal of the priests who abused thousands of children, by moving them to other parishes, and thus allowing others to be abused, and who did everything in his power to keep it in the Church, and prevent the law of the different lands this abuse took place in, from becoming involved.

Re: gay adoption