We're not just talking of personal prejudices here though are we - we are talking of policies and fundemental business practicies (for they operate as a business, they have to to be a charity) that are illegal in every other form of business - the special dispensation for religions to flout legalities simply by stating "But its what we believe in..." is wrong, always has been, always will be and you playing the persecution card won't change that.

No one is stopping them.
However, they are not, in my philosophy, entitled to tax breaks to do it.
My reason is because they specifically exclude a minority group, not on the grounds of lack of need or on the grounds of unsuitability in terms of potential capability as successful parents but on the (in my view, pathetic) grounds of not being married within the Catholic definition of marriage.
Hence, the aims of that "charity" are mis-stated.

For Dally ...
You tried to make a point about a vigorous minority (gay couples) calling the shots and driving the debate.
Quite apart from that being incorrect, I would invite you remember that only approximately 8% of the UK population is Catholic and that fewer than a million of them regularly attend church.
By your rules they shouldn't be driving the debate either.

Then there's those you claim to be CoE, Muslims, Jews, Methodists, Hindu's etc, etc

It is worth remembering that there is no one line that unites all Christians in all Christian denominations on issues related to sexuality.

I suspect it's the same in other religions too.

If they are driving the debate about this issue, then they are doing it very quietly, I certainly haven't heard them wanting the law changed to suit their adoption charities.

I'll think you'll find that the Charity Commissioners interpretation of existing law could by some be considered suspect.

Many if not most charities are exclusive. That is their nature. The Catholic church set up their adoption agency way before the secular government decided that being gay was now ok enough to adopt children. They have been providing couples of similar worldview with children for decades. The Catholic Church in a free society should be able to continue its work without harrassment and with its charitable status in tact because it operates as a charity in the same way other charities operate, serving a particular section of the community as all charities do.

Councils have mile long waiting lists of children waiting to be adopted and they have no problems matching children with gay couples. Stonewall aren't happy with that though. They are demanding that everyone conforms to their way of thinking. The irony. They are wanting for others what they don't want for themselves. Their hypocrisy is astounding.

Its illegal to discriminate against certain sections of society.

The fact that a person or organisation discriminated against that sector previous to the law being formed is irrelvant, I can't continue treating black people as second class citizens just because I was raised through a couple of decades when they were until the race relations act was introduced circa 1976.

I think that you understand all of this though and the Catholic Church should surely understand this for their adoption charity, they and you are intelligent people who have allowed your view to be clouded by a faith based dogma which is making you support illegal working practices that you would not get away with if, for instance, you ran a grocers shop - or even a guest house (LOL).

Is there something wrong with being gay?

Nothing wrong with being gay.

Should gay people be allowed to adopt children is a totally different question.

I have to ask why...

Why would a persons sexuality have anything to do with raising a child

Because a child is the result of union between a man and a woman? Just a thought.

I only got a C in GCSE biology, but that sounds about right. I may have to double check with my girlfriend, who is at medical school.

No problems with gays and civil partnerships.

Reference allowing them to adopt. If nothing else, just imagine the ribbing the kid is going to get at school.

I see what you've done there, but I don't think you've understood.

You're right that a child is the result of union between a man and a woman, but we're talking about adoption here. Adoption is the result of union between a man and a woman? Err...not quite.

"Having", for want of a better term, and "raising" a child are two different things. Who are you, and who are the "catholic" adoption agency, to decide that a child cannot be [uraised[/u by certain people because, largely, of what they do with their genitals?

No, no, I didn't ask you how you make a child, I asked you why a persons sexual preference has anything to do with raising a child.

I love it when people use the 'who are you to ' line. It usually means they have nothing substantive to say and just want to appear to have taken the moral high ground.

What that the child has two dads or two mams?? Quite normal these days for children to have two sets of parents through divorce and remarriage........next excuse!

I love it when people get in a state about what I've typed



I notice you removed " "Having", for want of a better term, and "raising" a child are two different things." from the quote. I guess that bit didn't suit your "nothing substantive" or "moral high ground" arguments, being that it's substantive and nothing to do with any high ground (why would I have any right to say who should raise a child either?).

So what's your beef with gay people raising children?

You are dressing-up exclusion of a minority as "serving a particular section of the community".
That's waffle.

I am not in a state.

I was just pointing out that you were talking rhetorical bollox.

Ah, nothing substantive to say and trying to take the moral high ground



What's your beef with gay people raising children?

I have never said I have beef with gay people raising children. I said it was an entirely different question, and that the child would likely get some ribbing at school.

But that didn't stop you from reading what you wanted to read on this thread, as opposed to what was actually posted.

In which case, we should stop anyone breeding who is likely to produce a child with ginger hair or short sight.