No exemption from gay rights law

[disruptivehair]

Downing Street has said there will be no exemption from anti-discrimination laws for Catholic adoption agencies.
But Tony Blair said they would get 21 months to prepare for change, calling this a "sensible compromise".

Adoption agencies had warned they would close rather than place children with gay couples, saying that went against their beliefs.

The Catholic Church in England and Wales said it was "deeply disappointed" that no exemption had been offered.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6311097.stm


Not sure what to think of this. Part of me thinks it's great that they won't be able to discriminate against gays anymore, but the other part of me thinks it's an unacceptable interference in church affairs. Confusing.

[penagate]

I shall bite:

If the Catholic Church was opposed to traffic regulation, should Catholics have the right to speed?

[disruptivehair]

I shall bite:

If the Catholic Church was opposed to traffic regulation, should Catholics have the right to speed?

Interesting...though speeding isn't covered by Catholic dogma and homosexuality is.

I feel I should make it clear that I don't have anything against gays. I'm in favor of gay marriage AND gay adoption. However, I also don't have anything against Catholics...I was raised Catholic, though I'm now atheist.

The Catholic Church feels very strongly that homosexual relationships are sinful and they don't want to put children into an environment that they think is sinful. They don't generally adopt children out to unmarried heterosexual couples either for the same reason. I know that the Catholic Church in the UK has adopted children out to single homosexual parents, since they don't feel that being gay in and of itself is a sin, since you can't help being gay. The sin comes when you have a physical homosexual relationship.

So to me it isn't that the Catholic Church wants to discriminate against gays; to me they want to be allowed to continue to place children in environments that they feel are suitable without state interference. I discussed this with my husband last night and he said that denying homosexual couples the right to adopt would be the 'thin end of the wedge' and what's to stop other organizations from refusing to adopt to blacks, or Asians, or right-wingers, etc. Personally I don't see that that would happen.

[DeadEyes]

One argument I heard went along the lines:
"Doctors are not obliged to perform abortions so why should adoption agencies be forced to put kids into homes them deem unsuitable."

There are other agencies people can go to.

As usual everyone is ignoring the important thing. The same sex couples are saying we want kids. The catholics are saying no chance you hell bound fiend.
And the kid just lies there without a voice.

Personally I don't think the catholic church should be allowed responsibility for the welfare of anyone given their track record, Magdalene Laundries etc.

[disruptivehair]

One argument I heard went along the lines:
"Doctors are not obliged to perform abortions so why should adoption agencies be forced to put kids into homes them deem unsuitable."

There are other agencies people can go to.

As usual everyone is ignoring the important thing. The same sex couples are saying we want kids. The catholics are saying no chance you hell bound fiend.
And the kid just lies there without a voice.

Personally I don't think the catholic church should be allowed responsibility for the welfare of anyone given their track record, Magdalene Laundries etc.

Yeah, but the Magdalene Laundries were in Ireland. The church could rightly point out that what was done in Ireland decades ago shouldn't have any impact on what they do today in the UK...though those were pretty horrifying.

However, I'm with you...the church doesn't exactly have a terrific track record worldwide, though Catholic adoption agencies here in the UK in general are pretty sterling.

[DeadEyes]

Yeah they were In Ireland, the church was far more powerful than I imagine it is or ever has been in the UK. Although these places were shamefully still in operation in the mid 90s.
I guess my belief is that such agencies should be wholly state run, this is not an area where "competition is good for the market".
I wonder would faith based agencies refused to put kids in other faith or no faith families. If so then their arguments about their beliefs become suspect.

[disruptivehair]

Yeah they were In Ireland, the church was far more powerful than I imagine it is or ever has been in the UK. Although these places were shamefully still in operation in the mid 90s.
I guess my belief is that such agencies should be wholly state run, this is not an area where "competition is good for the market".
I wonder would faith based agencies refused to put kids in other faith or no faith families. If so then their arguments about their beliefs become suspect.

To me it's just odd that it's even an issue since I see it as the state interfering with the church.

[DeadEyes]

To me it's just odd that it's even an issue since I see it as the state interfering with the church.

It could be viewed as that, but one might also say that it's the church interfering in the adoption process.

[disruptivehair]

It could be viewed as that, but one might also say that it's the church interfering in the adoption process.

It's not the only adoption process, though; homosexual couples in the UK can avail themselves of other adoption services. It's not like the Catholics are the only game in the whole country.

[DeadEyes]

It's not the only adoption process, though; homosexual couples in the UK can avail themselves of other adoption services. It's not like the Catholics are the only game in the whole country.

Yes but they are publicly funded, and those that pay the bills often get to call the shots. Plus how far should accepting peoples beliefs go. What happens when belief conflicts with the law of the land. Would you agree the law of the land should take precedence over the laws of some peoples religion, or is this more state interference?

[disruptivehair]

Yes but they are publicly funded, and those that pay the bills often get to call the shots.

Then take funding away.

Plus how far should accepting peoples beliefs go. What happens when belief conflicts with the law of the land. Would you agree the law of the land should take precedence over the laws of some peoples religion, or is this more state interference?

Some people consider the law of the land immoral or absurd. If the Catholic Church's adoption services no longer receive public funding (which they shouldn't and likely wouldn't in my home country), they should be allowed to continue to operate any way they see fit.

[DeadEyes]

If they want they could refuse the funding as opposed to the state taking it away. But I still believe there should be limits on their ability to operate as they see fit. I'm not sure why there is more than one adoption agency in the first place. Is it because catholic want there kid put into a catholic home? If so surely non faith based ones could just as easily do that.

[disruptivehair]

If they want they could refuse the funding as opposed to the state taking it away. But I still believe there should be limits on their ability to operate as they see fit. I'm not sure why there is more than one adoption agency in the first place. Is it because catholic want there kid put into a catholic home? If so surely non faith based ones could just as easily do that.

No...Catholic adoption agencies will take children from non-Catholic women and they will adopt infants to non-Catholic households.

[DeadEyes]

No...Catholic adoption agencies will take children from non-Catholic women and they will adopt infants to non-Catholic households.

So they have no problem with pagans, heathens and heretics just homosexuals. This is where I have concerns, there seems to be a lot of pick n' mix when it comes to religion.

[disruptivehair]

So they have no problem with pagans, heathens and heretics just homosexuals. This is where I have concerns, there seems to be a lot of pick n' mix when it comes to religion.

They probably would prefer to put children in 'upright' and 'religious' homes...though that religion probably doesn't have to be Christianity, it probably helps if it's a normal religion and not a cult. Being an atheist probably doesn't help either.

From what I hear the Catholics will adopt a child to a single homosexual, but not to a homosexual COUPLE. This would fit with Catholic dogma generally believing that one is born gay and can't help it, hence being gay isn't a sin, but having gay sex is.

[DeadEyes]

From what I hear the Catholics will adopt a child to a single homosexual, but not to a homosexual COUPLE. This would fit with Catholic dogma generally believing that one is born gay and can't help it, hence being gay isn't a sin, but having gay sex is.

Yes and according to Catholic teaching we are all born with original sin, so if your not baptised etc. you are a sinner just as much as anyone who is having gay sex. Now if they are willing to give kids to such sinners then their problem with same sex couples would seem to me to have little to do with their religious beliefs and more to to with the fact that they just don't like gay couples. This is just run of the mill discrimination and nothing to do with their God.

[System_Error]

I feel sorry for kids adopted by the gross ones.

[disruptivehair]

Yes and according to Catholic teaching we are all born with original sin, so if your not baptised etc. you are a sinner just as much as anyone who is having gay sex. Now if they are willing to give kids to such sinners then their problem with same sex couples would seem to me to have little to do with their religious beliefs and more to to with the fact that they just don't like gay couples. This is just run of the mill discrimination and nothing to do with their God.

I think it probably has everything to do with their god and a lot of Catholics disagree with Catholic dogma on this issue, including many priests. Some orders are pretty liberal and they think the Vatican is dead wrong on the gay issue, but since the Church is a hierarchy they can't step out of line. The rules are made by some old guys in Rome and there's nothing they can do about it except to keep fighting.

When I was still a practicing Catholic (I'm not a believer anymore) I knew some priests who were exceedingly liberal, including some who gave their blessing in private to homosexual couples and some who specifically ministered to the homosexual community without telling them they were a bunch of dirty sinners. I think they leave that to the Baptists; the Catholics aren't nearly as judgemental in practice as many Protestant sects are.

I don't think that's the point, though. Obviously it's discrimination in a loose sense of the word. The question is whether the state has the right to interfere in this manner; I think it doesn't, especially since there are many other avenues open to homosexual couples wishing to adopt children.

[FunkyDexter]

I think it's a really complicated issue and really can't make up my mind what I think yet.

First, I believe that, where a churches practice conflicts directly with the law of the land in a secular country, then the law must take precedence. I'm a big supporter of religion (though not religious myself) but for me the law HAS to come first or you might as well throw the very concepts of democracy out the window. The law says you cannot discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality - refusing to allow children to be adopted would seem to be a contravention of this law and the Catholic church should not be allowed to ignore that law on the basis that they disagree with it - on that basis I can refuse to pay my car tax.

That said, we make exceptions in law for religions all the time, e.g. Seiks do not have to wear crash helmets on motor bikes because of thir requirement to wear a turban (actually the requirement is to keep the hair clean and the turban is simply the means to meet the requirement).

Secondly - I am, however, seriously concerned that we're concerned about the adopters rights to the apparent extent of ignoring the adoptees rights. All the debate I'm hearing is about whether gay people have the right to adopt, nobody seems to be discussing whether that's what's best for the child.

I'm a firm believer in the classic nuclear family as the best enviroment to raise a child in and, on that basis, I would sooner see children being adopted by heterosexual couples of the same ethnicity and nationality as the child. Though given the choice between adopting a child into a non-nuclear but none-the-less suitable family (which would include gay couples, single poeple (gay or straight) or families who differ in ethnicity or race) and leaving them in care, I'd go for the adoption any day.

[disruptivehair]

I think it's a really complicated issue and really can't make up my mind what I think yet.

I'm still kind of split myself.

First, I believe that, where a churches practice conflicts directly with the law of the land in a secular country, then the law must take precedence. I'm a big supporter of religion (though not religious myself) but for me the law HAS to come first or you might as well throw the very concepts of democracy out the window. The law says you cannot discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality - refusing to allow children to be adopted would seem to be a contravention of this law and the Catholic church should not be allowed to ignore that law on the basis that they disagree with it - on that basis I can refuse to pay my car tax.

I still see it as a church/state entanglement, but I'm coming from a place where church and state are supposed to be separate. In the UK I know this is not the case, so it's a bit more complex and confusing.

That said, we make exceptions in law for religions all the time, e.g. Seiks do not have to wear crash helmets on motor bikes because of thir requirement to wear a turban (actually the requirement is to keep the hair clean and the turban is simply the means to meet the requirement).

I never knew that's why they wore turbans...see, you learn something new every day. :-)

Secondly - I am, however, seriously concerned that we're concerned about the adopters rights to the apparent extent of ignoring the adoptees rights. All the debate I'm hearing is about whether gay people have the right to adopt, nobody seems to be discussing whether that's what's best for the child.

True, but they don't seem to care in this case...no political points to score!

I'm a firm believer in the classic nuclear family as the best enviroment to raise a child in and, on that basis, I would sooner see children being adopted by heterosexual couples of the same ethnicity and nationality as the child. Though given the choice between adopting a child into a non-nuclear but none-the-less suitable family (which would include gay couples, single poeple (gay or straight) or families who differ in ethnicity or race) and leaving them in care, I'd go for the adoption any day.

I think homosexual couples are just as capable of bringing up a child as heterosexual couples are, though I think homosexual couples need to be more mindful about making sure the child has male and female role models in their lives; in a heterosexual couple this is much easier, though back in the USA I knew gay couples who had kids and they seemed perfectly fine, didn't seem to have any more problems or issues than any other child.

[dclamp]

I woulnt understand why gay people cant have kids. i understand why they "Cant", i just dont understand, just be cause they are gay, what is stoping them from having kids, since they cant make kids on their own, then they should be more the welcome to adopt. i mean, i would be very mad if my parents were gay though. I would not want my dads to come to open house or anything, i would be embarassed. But i mean, i think they should have the privalege to have kids.

[disruptivehair]

I woulnt understand why gay people cant have kids. i understand why they "Cant", i just dont understand, just be cause they are gay, what is stoping them from having kids, since they cant make kids on their own, then they should be more the welcome to adopt. i mean, i would be very mad if my parents were gay though. I would not want my dads to come to open house or anything, i would be embarassed. But i mean, i think they should have the privalege to have kids.

But if you were raised by a homosexual couple, wouldn't it seem normal instead of embarrassing?

[mendhak]

At first it wouldn't. But later, the child will notice the differences when he is among other kids and he may react to it. And then they'll be perpetually embarrassed of their parents in the way the rest of us are.

[disruptivehair]

At first it wouldn't. But later, the child will notice the differences when he is among other kids and he may react to it. And then they'll be perpetually embarrassed of their parents in the way the rest of us are.

Kids are embarrassed by even normal, good-looking parents; you can't win.

[Andrew G]

Would kids growing up in a homosexual environment grow to become homosexual? Just wanted to know if there are any studies or facts on the matter.

[disruptivehair]

Would kids growing up in a homosexual environment grow to become homosexual? Just wanted to know if there are any studies or facts on the matter.

I doubt it. By and large homosexuals grow up with heterosexual parents and there's no evidence that I've seen that children of homosexuals, especially adopted children, grow up to be gay themselves.

There are interesting studies about gayness running in families, but those tend to focus on twins and siblings. Something interesting I read was that the more boys a woman has, the greater the chance the next one will be gay. There's evidence to suggest homosexuality may be partly genetic or partly due to conditions in the womb since the identical twin of a gay man is overwhelmingly likely to be gay too, and there's less strong correlation between siblings. Apparently, though, this doesn't apply to lesbians. Weird, eh?

[Andrew G]

Women... they always have to be different

I kinda goes with a similar conversation i had once with a physics teacher... (classes where um... interesting). You hear of men changing sex, but never women.

[disruptivehair]

Women... they always have to be different

I kinda goes with a similar conversation i had once with a physics teacher... (classes where um... interesting). You hear of men changing sex, but never women.

Women do do it, but the plastic surgery required is MUCH easier for men than it is for women. Men grow breasts by taking hormones and the surgery involves castration and the transformation of the ***** into a rudimentary vagina...in a nutshell. For women, they have to have their breasts reduced and the doctors have to try to make a ***** and testicles out of...well...nothing. They also often have their uterus and ovaries removed, which is major abdominal surgery. The risks are much higher and the outcomes are less satisfactory, which is why you don't see many female-to-male transformations. Or maybe women are just too sensible to go through all that crap.


The ***** is actually p3nis, not something nasty.

[Andrew G]

I think its kinda sad really, that people choose to change themselves like that, i kinda think they're not happy with their current appearance... its basically like trying to be someone else.

Anyway i'm getting off topic now...

Ps. I wonder why it blocked it out, but not any of the other words

[disruptivehair]

I think its kinda sad really, that people choose to change themselves like that, i kinda think they're not happy with their current appearance... its basically like trying to be someone else.

Anyway i'm getting off topic now...

Ps. I wonder why it blocked it out, but not any of the other words

I know what you mean. I personally think sex changes are weird and I don't agree with using crude surgery to solve what I feel is a psychological problem. That's just my opinion tho, and I'm no expert.

I also feel that a man can never become a woman. Ever. I think male-to-female transsexuals are frankly insulting because they are behaving the way they think women are supposed to behave, and they embrace some of the most ridiculous and negative stereotypes. It's very telling that they wear ultra-feminine clothes, tons of makeup, and grow long hair. It tells me that they don't know the first thing about being a woman if they think that's all it takes...that and a bit of surgery. Puh-leeze.

[FunkyDexter]

i kinda think they're not happy with their current appearance

I don't think it's really about appearence. It goes deeper than that. I agree with disruptive that it's a psychological problem rather than a phyisical one though. You're not a woman trapped in a mans body, you're a man who wants to be trapped in a womans body. Surgery isn't going to change what you are until we can do it at the genetic level because that's the level and which your gender is defined.

Quite worrying to me is that we're talking about offering the sex change operation on the NHS over here. If people want the operation that's fine with me, but why am I being asked to pay for it when our system's already so overburdened that my step-nan couldn't get a hip operation when she needed it?

I still see it as a church/state entanglement, but I'm coming from a place where church and state are supposed to be separate. In the UK I know this is not the case, so it's a bit more complex and confusing.

Do you really think religion has less importantance in the US than over here? I know the separation's codified in the US (mainly because you have a constitution and we don't) but I get the impression that christianity has had a far greater influence on the laws that have been passed in the US than it has in the UK.

[disruptivehair]

I don't think it's really about appearence. It goes deeper than that. I agree with disruptive that it's a psychological problem rather than a phyisical one though. You're not a woman trapped in a mans body, you're a man who wants to be trapped in a womans body. Surgery isn't going to change what you are until we can do it at the genetic level because that's the level and which your gender is defined.

Quite worrying to me is that we're talking about offering the sex change operation on the NHS over here. If people want the operation that's fine with me, but why am I being asked to pay for it when our system's already so overburdened that my step-nan couldn't get a hip operation when she needed it?

I've heard that it is already available on the NHS but you'll wait 5-7 years for it.

Do you really think religion has less importantance in the US than over here? I know the separation's codified in the US (mainly because you have a constitution and we don't) but I get the impression that christianity has had a far greater influence on the laws that have been passed in the US than it has in the UK.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It isn't supposed to. However, I think the US is ahead of the UK in that at least on paper, religion is not allowed to interfere with the state and vice versa. The state almost never interferes with religious matters, and organized religion does not interfere much in state business; it's usually individual politicians trying to please religious constituents who do the meddling.

Culturally speaking, religion is more important in the US than it is in the UK. Legally, church and state are entangled in the UK in a way that they simply aren't in the US.

[schoolbusdriver]

Hmmmm. Difficult one is this. I used to work (for over 20 years) in an office environment where there were NO gays, so was quite innocent until circumstances (my youngest son has crohns disease) forced me to work part-time (as a school bus driver) where I met the general public. My instincts tell me the church is correct, (read the rest before you have an apoplective fit) BUT the catholic church's record in child abuse is awful - so who are they are to judge? My instincts also tell me that my instincts may be wrong , as do the cases of such as Ian Brady and Myra Hindley .

Any religious decision is by definition, biased. It's all based on your belief in what someone else (Note:- a human being - probably a power-grabber) has said/written, not on what you can theorise or prove for yourself. I've even had junk mail that had "XXXXX said that before creation, the universe was filled with a milky fluid. Science has proved this to be true" . A total double-think paradox. And people actually believe this crap without question? I could write the equivalent of a bible myself if I could be bothered. (Even at 10 years old, I was asking myself about the origin of the universe, how could intelligence exist before the universe existed, what was the reason for life, etc) Note that the recent "religion" of scientology was created in a sci-fi novel. The author found that it made more money than his books, so he decided to take it up professionally . You might as well believe you can "Fall off the edge of the Earth". I think all religions are rubbish.

So, what do I think? Well, my instincts still prevail. If you don't like it, tough. I couldn't care less about being politically correct - and I have gay friends (great sense of humour ), BUT my mind is a democracy, so I can think whatever I want. My gay friends (both sexes) respect my instincts, as I do theirs. And if the various religions want to relinquish more responsibility and fade into history, let them. Future history will judge.

BTW. No apologies. (I think I've annoyed/included everyone)

[zaza]

To get back to penagate's first nibble, the question isn't really about whether gay couples should adopt or not, it's whether the Catholic Church should be given exemption from a law of the land on the grounds of religious practice.

According to many of my Muslim friends, it is specifically permitted under Islam to have "an eye for an eye", i.e. violence can be justified if perpetrated against you first. You are specifically not allowed to raise your hand first. This, incidentally, is the justification used by many of the extremists about the world today, who declare that countless atrocities in crusader times / creation of Israel (etc) therefore warrant bombing trains and buildings nowadays.
Should this sort of behaviour be allowed? Where does the distinction lie between what facets of religious belief, any religious belief, should be exempted from the law and those that shouldn't? How many people need to follow a religion in order to allow its firmly-held beliefs to exempt them from a particularly heinous piece of law-making? Should I be compelled to act against my beliefs because mine is a religion of 1? What if I manage to convince a few others?

Under Islam, there are "elders" who study the Koran and come to a conclusion as to the interpretation, and hence what is permissible and what is not. Some of these elders, you can imagine, are more extreme than others and there are several different views. Do we then need a similar set-up for every religion, mainstream and otherwise, to determine what parts of the law should apply to them and what shouldn't?

We rapidly reach a situation where we fail to actually have a "law of the land", and more a different set of laws for different people, depending on their beliefs. i.e. no law at all.


To get off the fence, my feeling is that regardless of whether I think it is acceptable for gay couples to adopt, I do not think it is acceptable for a religious group to be exempted from the law of the land on the grounds of belief, even if they think that God's word comes first.

[Andrew G]

I go to church nearly every week, and I'm devout, and actually last Sunday we read a passage that says "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities." Romans 13:01. So even the Bible says to listen to the government.

I'm personally against homosexuality and think its a sin, but I live by "Love the person not the sin", so just because in my eyes they are committing a sin, doesn't mean i should hate them, for everyone commits sins and if we didn't then we would be perfect. I'm not trying to say that people who are gay should be allowed to adopt or not, I'm, similarly to Zaza, saying that the church should always respect the laws of the land.

[dclamp]

I go to church nearly every week, and I'm devout, and actually last Sunday we read a passage that says "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities." Romans 13:01. So even the Bible says to listen to the government.

I go to church every Wednesday, and i dont think that it is a sin, but more going against god. You are changing the way that god made you, and i guess, now that i think about it, it is kind of a sin.

Now i think tattoos are a sin, they are taking on the appearance of evil. same with cussing, and piercings

[MasterBlaster]

I go to church every Wednesday, and i dont think that it is a sin, but more going against god. You are changing the way that god made you, and i guess, now that i think about it, it is kind of a sin.

Now i think tattoos are a sin, they are taking on the appearance of evil. same with cussing, and piercings

What if you got a tattoo that said " I Love Jesus" ?

[dclamp]

What if you got a tattoo that said " I Love Jesus" ?

see, thats where i am confused. You are still changing the why that god made you... i guess it is like 50/50

[DeadEyes]

I go to church every Wednesday, and i dont think that it is a sin, but more going against god. You are changing the way that god made you, and i guess, now that i think about it, it is kind of a sin.

Now i think tattoos are a sin, they are taking on the appearance of evil. same with cussing, and piercings

Are you saying people decide to be gay? If not then they must be born gay, and that your God made them that way so they're not changing anything.

[disruptivehair]

I say people are born gay.