大象传媒

The Bible's teaching is crystal clear that homosexual practise by either men or women is wrong. The church loves homosexuals and lesbians but will not condone the ways they are allowed by law to express their preferences. God's word says it is wrong and no amount of legislation is going to change that fact. There must be a conscience exemption clause in the legislation.

Another way of looking at this would be how various religious organisations are against discrimination against people on the grounds of religious belief. This thereby requires those who disagree with their views on, for example, homosexuality, not to discriminate against, for example catholics or Muslims. The hypocrisy is so blatant, If I decided to withhold services to a catholic because of their church's treatment of Gays, they would go straight to court. Why should catholic consciences be protected by law and not others?

You miss the point of Catholic objections. The Catholic church is not discriminating against gays in the way a racist might discriminate against someone purely because of their colour. A fundamental tenet of the church is that a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex is wrong. Being gay is not: the church does not not intend to discriminate against gays purely because they are gay, but it cannot accept that a "family" can be based around two men in a sexual relationship. For the catholic church, a family includes a mother and a father and therefore they cannot place children into any other type of family unit.

The concept that the church should be exempt from anti-gay discrimination is absurd. If a secular adoptioon agency wanted to refuse gay couples on moral grounds, the government would respond that they must act within the law. So that it is even entertaining the protests from religious leaders makes no sense whatsoever. Why do we have to give such unprecedented attention to religious groups in debates like these?

I'm actually shocked at this debate. How on earth can we be having this discussion in the 21st century? To hear the Archbishop of York speaking on Radio 4 this morning, claiming that this kind of discrimination is the same as Doctor's being able to elect not to carry out abortions is disgusting. The two are totally different cases! A homosexual couple adopting a child into a loving environment CANNOT be compared to the termination of a foetus! And to do so is shockingly ignorant.

And to hear him procrastinating like a politician when asked "Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?" told me more about his views than any straight answer he could have given. For anyone who's interested apparantly being gay is not a sin... practicing gay acts is. Utter drivel.

Religious vs. Political? There shouldn't be any such debate. Lets face it, the big sucker punch here, which no one seems willing to raise, is this. Religious groups protest against homosexual rights because they "BELIEVE" that homosexuality is a sin. The foundation of this belief in most cases comes from a book written between 1700 and 3000 or so years ago. Belief is a personal matter. I could believe that I have an invisible man whispering into my ear directing my every move. That wouldn't make it so! Of course, we live in a world where the US President can tell the world that an invisible creature told him to invade Iraq... and somehow he retains his position! Crazy!

Why can't we sit back, as rationalists, and say... "Fine, you can discrimate against anyone you wish to... but first you must prove that your beliefs are justified and that this moral code you preach comes from the higher power which you claim it does". In other words if you want to discriminate on the word of the Bible or the Koran, then prove they were written by a higher being.. . in other words prove the existence of your god, because if that god doesn't exist then what right do any of these people have in trying to enforce its rules on the rest of us?

Of course, such points are never made. Yet if I were to go out and taunt someone because of their race, and then I flaunted Mein Kampf as justification, I would rightfully be arrested or at least admonished. And yet brandishing another, older book (which has little or no provenance) to justify equally ridiculous and hateful beliefs is perfectly acceptable...

What a sad state of affairs...

surely this should be more focused on how a religious organisation is trying to assert it's beliefs on the mainstream population and trying to change governmnet policy to follow their views.

Views that are held by a minority of the populous.

If this was an Islamic sect trying this the tabloids would be hitting orbit about now.

Whats the difference between that religion and Catholicism or Church of England?

Nothing they are all worng and should have no place in the running of this country.

The legislation being proposed outlaws discrimination against homosexuals in the provision of goods, facilities and services. Into which of these categories do children in need of a home fall into? Are they regarded as goods, facilities or services?
The Labour government know very well from their own research that the best place to bring up children is in a home with a mother and father - in fact, their own research reveals that if that couple are married, rather than co-habiting, then statistically, the long term chances of that relationship holding together are much better.
Surely, before the government starts trying to place children into same-sex households, they should do some research first to establish the statistical liklihood of those relationships enduring for the long term. Sadly, this is not about the needs of children - it is a selfish legislation that seeks to address the demands, not needs, of a very small minority.
The stance taken by the Catholic Church is being presented as a Catholic issue - it is not, it is a Christian issue. When the law of the land contradicts God's law, then Christians must follow God's way.

If the Catholic Church gets its way then "gay establishments" should be exempt from putting up signs saying "no straights".

We all have a Sexual Orientation. This isn't a 'Gay Rights' law, it's an equality law. Catholics have the right to choose their religion, Homosexuals have no choice but to deal with what they are dealt with by nature.

Lets hope the sensible members of the cabinet push this through an ailing Blair.

Why should catholic (or other consciences) not be protected by law? There is a moral rule that allows doctors who disagree with abortion to be exempt from giving one. Should a person be forced to do something that their conscience does not allow? Yes, people should be protected from discrimination but should you discriminate against others in doing so? In a sensible society there would be no need for such a law. Gay couples would be allowed to adopt from other sources and catholic (and other) agencies would be permitted to maintain their beliefs.

It is quite astonishing that prejudice is universally condemned when seen in the Big Brother house, yet somehow socially acceptable when displayed by members of religious institutions. Should a racist be able to treat others in a discriminatory manner because of a right to act according to his or her racist beliefs? Of course not. Equally, homophobia in any form has no place in a civilised society. The very notion of an 'opt-out' in the Equality Act is just laughable; if such an opt-out passes into law, the government will both lose all moral credibility and undermine attempts to create a more tolerant and decent society.

I'm not surprised at this brouhaha between Catholic adoption agencies and the new equality laws barring discrimination against gays in adoption proceedings. Religion has always been about dividing people; look at Northern Ireland as a close and ongoing example of religious beliefs dividing people.

Frankly... religious faith should have no business with adoptions. They tend to put religious dogma (or dogmess) before the welfare of the child.

A friend of mine is a language teacher in San Fransisco and a third of his class have gay parents. He say that on average these childen perform better than the straight parented kids - so perhaps kids having gay "parents" are the lucky ones.

Hey Nick, what do you make of the latest police activity at Number 10?
Do you not find it amazing that senior figures around the government are being arrested and/or interviewed under caution about possible criminal activity?
Can you remember anything remotely comparable to this?
Do you agree with me that it should be leading ALL the headllines?

On Simon McMahon's point - why can't adoption rights be compared to abortion rights? Bear in mind that people have abortions in the strong belief that it is better for them. Their wish to take this positive, life-enhancing (for them) step is obstructed by irrational "pro-life" prejudice such as yours.

Actually, I'm not in favour of abortion. I just wanted to make the point that almost everyone has rationally indefensible views.

Personally, my take on the adoption situation is this. Catholic agencies should restrict themselves to placing children with married couples, in accordance with their beliefs. They should not be selectively discriminating between gay couples and heterosexual couples "living in sin". That is to create an artificial distinction where none is indicated.

I am pleased that the majority of these comments are against this, and most say things better than I could say myself, so I will not attempt it.

It must be very frustrating for gay couples who simply wish to have a family and are constantly battling against discrimination from many sides just to be able to do that. As if the adoption process was not already difficult as it is. Adoption may be the way I choose to raise a family in the future and with such discrimination, it may put off other couples trying to adopt, and therefore children missing going to a loving home.

Discriminating between proposed causes of action is bread and butter "option (not adoption) appraisal".
A useful test is to ask "What would be the evolutionary outcome if all adoptees were channelled to "gay" couples as opposed to heterosexual ones?

My feeling (unsupported) is that it would lead to a change in our society with long term unforseen consequences. Has this been "modelled?"

With such a change as a possibility, a good compromise would be to allow exceptions, (irrespective of the "legal" argument) and church facilities are the *natural* choice for such exemptions.

As a protestant I totally agree with the catholic church.At the same time it would only be prudent that arguements are made carefully in comparison.Comparing sex and race issues with sexual orientation is not quite fair.Sex and race are about individual being of which no one has a choice.Sexual orientation is about behaviour of which an individual may choose.

What is David Cameron's view on this subject?

What I find sad is hearing a man of God like the Archbishop of York this morning tying himself in knots trying to defend the indefensible. He knows that discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, religion or sexual preference is wrong. Yet because his church has a proportion of bigots who do not agree and have threatened to split if gay people are given equal rights he twists and turns to avoid a straight answer.

What next? Perhaps a church that says it believes black people or Jews should not have the same rights. The church 'loves' them but does not agree with them having the rights of everyone else. Quite rightly that would be deemed wrong and illegal. This is no different.

We have a PM who some time back lost the plot and seems to believe he is on a mission from God. And we only have to look across the Atlantic to see how dangerous that can be. Sadly, (for a New Labour supporter) his departure date cannot come soon enough.

The Catholic Church is providing a much needed and valued service for vulnerable children. The State finds it difficult to meet the needs of these children, struggling to achieve acceptable outcomes when they remain in State care. The State is now changing the rules, making it impossible for the Church to continue to provide this service. Whether we agree or not with their views, surely the needs of the children come first, and a way is found to allow them to continue the work? Or is abstract political dogma more important then the needs of babies and children?

This is what happens when you have an established church. The Catholic Church is not established, of course, but, by association with the church that is, it, along with other superstitions, gets the ear of government. It's high time we put religion right out of the public sphere - it just gets in the way. It's not necessary for morality, for ethics and for doing what is right for the majority. To say, 'Let the kids stay in their orphanages' rather than place them with a same-sex couple is criminal. Anyway, since when was Britain answerable to Rome? Several hundred years ago, I think

It's funny how there is such an inconsistent attitude to respecting established white majority religions and those practiced by minorities.

When a teacher wants to cover her face when teaching children for religious purposes, there is a huge hoohah when she is told not to.

Motorcycle riders must by law wear a crash helmet unless their religious beliefs force them to wear turbans. Mutilation (circumcision) of male babies by Islamic and Jewish adherents is ok. Slaughtering of cattle with a knife is ok, despite objections by the RSPCA. But when someone responsible for a child whose religion tells them that unnatural sexual practice is wrong refuses to give that child into the care of a couple who are by definition performing those practices, that is not ok. Now who are the hypocrites?

This is exactly what the Archbishop of York meant when he said that antidiscrimination laws can wind up discriminating against others. We can't stop adherents of minority-based religions from doing things which would be unacceptable for members of the white majority, for fear of race discrimination.

There is an innate feeling of fairness in this country. We are probably one of the few nations who rigorously adhere to directives coming out of Europe, for example. To introduce laws that favour a section of society against others, even a section that has experienced discrimination in the past, is unfair, and there will be a backlash. If even the sleepy old Church of England, led by someone who is extremely tolerant of homosexuality, supports the Catholic Church, the politicians should sit up and listen. This is, after all, still supposed to be country where the Christian religion is the state religion; the head of state is the head of the C of E. Why don't the Labour Party come clean and introduce an Act of Disestablishment?

As usual, I presume for having the courage to say what a great many people think, my thoughts will not be published. Pity.

If Catholics are discriminating against the homosexual community, then I suppose this means that some secular person proposes that we shut down Catholic, Muslim, Anglican and Jewish schools/agencies/whatever because they are discriminatory?
Who will this serve? Catholics are not Nazis.
The Catholic adoption agency refers gay couples to other agencies - it does not refuse to see them.
The poor old homosexual community are being hijacked in the name of political correctness which will result in a net loss for everyone.

"Gay Rights" is the new fox-hunting for Nu-Labour. Let me ask this, if an adoptive child objects to having gay foster parents, will the child be charged with homophobic crimes? It certainly looks like this.

The Church is right. The Church predates the State and at one time the Lord Chancellor was a Churchman rather than a member of the Secular Priesthood, the Lawyers.

Conscience must be above Law or Conscientious Objectors should be executed in wartime as in Germany, but not in Great Britain.

Theology is clear and it cannot be for The State to force people to act against Conscience for then the legitimacy of The State crumbles.

Leviathan was Thomas Hobbes warning - to often Europeans have let The State enslave - the examples are clear to any student of 20th Century hitory - but this EU Directive seems to be driving Europe towards a new tyranny and prospects of renewed violence.

Legislation is becoming absurd and irrelevant which is probably why it is held in such contempt and the judicial system has little power to control civil disorder. We are perhaps witnessing the end of legislative activism - Labour has doubled the Statute Book in just 10 years ut the society is corroded and failing....what comes next ?

Is this about gay sex, or being gay, because I'm confused. It's okay to be gay, but gay sex is a sin. So two men living together but not having sex would be okay to adopt, because they are not committing a sin?

If it's not about that, but about a child needing both a mother and a father, is the Catholic Church actively working to match up all the single parents with partners, simply because it's such a tragedy for the child to live with only one of their parents? And if so, why do they allow 'singles' to adopt?

If being allowed to act in accordance with one's conscience is a euphamism for protecting one's right to prejudice, as this equality law clearly establish this to be discrimination that is unnaceptable, then to hell with their conscience. It's clearly diseased.

And how many of the people actually working within the adoption agencies believe the line of the church on this? This ruling is given from on high, and like most of the Catholic Churches rulings in relation to sex and sexuality, the populace are in quiet but majority disagreement.

"approve appropriate鈥ingle people"

Don't rant about the above statement - If you think about it they are probably those who may have lost a husband or wife through death or other circumstance.

As a committed Christian I cannot understand the position of either the Catholic or Anglican churches.

Firstly it is not at all crystal clear that homosexuality is against 'Gods law'. True it is prohibited in the old testament, but then again so are many other things that we allow nowadays.
What is important is not whether someone is in a homo or hetero sexual relationship, but the way that they behave towards each other. To single out this one aspect of their lives is an anachronism that will make us shudder in a few hundred years time - as we still shudder over the failings of the church in years gone by.

Secondly, if the church does have a responsibility in this area, it is to do the right thing towards society in general, and children in this particular case. Whilst there may be some disagreement about whether children are better brought up by same or different sex couples (I don't believe that there is any difference as long as the couples love each other) I think that we can all agree that children are best brought up outside the state sector, and with some permanent parents of some type. For the church, therefore, to refuse to accept some prosective parents, is ultimately damaging to children. For me this is more against 'Gods law' than homosexuality.

To answer some specific points -
Anna Carr - there were times that Church people did claim that it was against 'Gods law' for couples of different 'races' to marry. They were wrong then. They are wrong now.

Jeff - this is totally different from doctors and abortion. Doctors are not allowed to not give an abortion on the grounds of the race, beliefs or sexual orientation of their patient. A more similar analogy would be a doctor refusing to give aids drugs to a homosexual person - I don't think that any of us would claim that that was right.

I was adopted aged 6 weeks. The idea that the state might have knowingly or worse deliberately placed me with homosexuals or lesbians is appalling.

Adoption must be solely in the interest of the child. The 'rights' of the proposed adopters are absolutely subservient to the rights of the child to have as normal an upbringing as is possible given the tragedy that his or her mother is unable or unwilling to do the job herself.

Living with homosexual 'make believe parents' can not possibly be as normal as possible. This is utterly wrong. Lord Falconer and others like him have completely lost touch with common sense.

In my experience it was and still is a huge disadvantage to be adopted. It is unimaginable to put the 'rights' of adult homosexuals above the rights of some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable infants and children.

It must be a tragedy for a mother to give away her child. Surely, she too must have the right to think that the best possible substitute family will be chosen. The idea that her child might be given to homosexuals could be a mental torture that adds to any feelings of guilt. Surely she has the right to choose?

The laws of this land are based on attempting to achieve the best for the most number of people through practical and logical reasoning, NOT beliefs. True sometimes personal opinions slip through, but this shouldn鈥檛 be the accepted way. Religious beliefs are by pure definition beliefs, the whole point of religion is belief without the need for evidence, it's called faith. As such, religious beliefs have no place in deciding laws, regardless of ones opinion on the religion itself.

This debate shouldn't even by happening for so many reasons, from the hypocrisy of these Catholic agencies (who clearly show they believe a single parent is better for a child than a couple) to the problem of putting an 'opt-out' clause for some religious beliefs but not others; this is instantly discriminatory in itself. This entire debate is a massive step backwards in terms of acceptance and equality and I'm saddened (if not surprised) the government feels the need to have it.

And as for the Catholic Adoption Agencies, they should be ashamed of themselves, putting their personal beliefs above the needs of the children they claim to care for. This is, whatever way you look at it, fundamentally selfish.

It's interesting that you mention Cherie Blair's Catholicism in your last sentence, Nick. Cherie is of course a prominent human rights lawyer who has often represented minority groups in equal rights litigation, including homosexuals. For example, Grant v South West Trains ( ) - Cherie represented a woman who took her employers to the European Court over their refusal to give travel concessions to her female partner even though they gave such concessions to the spouses (including unmarried partners) of their heterosexual staff.

Given this, it is hard to predict without asking her which side of this argument Cherie is on. It is certainly one in which her professional expertise might be sought - if the Catholic agencies get the exemption they seek, what's the chance we will see her representing a complainant against them and arguing for the exemption to be struck down?

Nick Robinson states that "there are relatively few gay adopters". However figures from the Local Government Association show that one in twenty children adopted from care are placed with homosexual adoptive parents. In some areas the figure is one in five.
Considering the fact that their are many cases of children being mistakenly put in care due to the fallibility of social workers and others, is it not surprising that there is some debate around this subject by religious organisations.

When this legislation comes in it will be illegal for 'gay establishments' to put up notices saying 'no straights'. So Hubert will be able to visit as many of these as he wants.

If the Catholic Church and Ruth Kelly get their way the whole equality agenda will unravel as various groups put in challenges. I'm sure that some would love to back to the good old moral days where life was OK if you were a white, heterosexual, able-bodied man. I don't want to go back to the "No Dogs, No Blacks and No Irish" days.

Putting a member of Opus Dei in charge of Equality Issues beggars belief - a bit like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank.

There are many instances of people claiming religious authority to be unpleasant to people, often in contrast to the tenets of their own religion. However, in this case I don't believe that's what is happening. Catholic views on this are well known, and this is not an issue of discriminating against homosexuals, but forcing people to act against what they believe are the best interests of a child up for adoption.

As an aside, many religious groups were against religious discrimination legislation, so the argument that church groups are being hypocritical in that regard is not as simple as it appears.

This comes down to very shaky moral territory. Our increasingly liberal society demands tolerance for religion as long as that religion does not contravene liberal views. As revealed by many comments, the increasing view is that religion should be a private matter, even when that religion demands a public response from it's followers.

Unfortunately, each viewpoint can be taken to extremes. Are racists, paedophiles or al-qaeda terrorists entitled to their views? Perhaps as long as they don't act upon them. However, a society which demands conformity of action while allowing diversity in your head is simply totalitarian! Holding beliefs and not acting on them is either hypocrisy or insanity.

Instead, we have a social-acceptibility scale. How far a view diverges from the norm governs our acceptance of differing views. For the catholic church, this unfortunately means that society has taken a right turn when they went straight ahead, and they find themselves holding a divergent view. For some christians the worry is that this road starts here and ends with it being illegal to talk to someone about religion. For homosexuals, this comes against a backdrop of long-term persecution by some religious elements. They just want their turn, and who can blame them?

For Mr.Blair, the choice is stark, and one I'm sure he hoped never to face. Either choice will be a moral judgment. He makes moral judgments each day, but the difference is that this one looks like one.

You miss the point of Catholic objections. The Catholic church is not discriminating against gays in the way a racist might discriminate against someone purely because of their colour.....

Er no, you discriminate against them because of their sexuality, not the colour of their skin, so does that make it ok then? I think believing in superstitious nonsense over reality is pretty feeble minded but I've made no efforts to have you sectioned. Respect other people's rights or it may be your own that get curtailed somewhere down the line.

The laws of this country must be adhered to regardless of anyone's religious beliefs. If we go down this road then what about Muslims who believe honour killings are justified, do we make them exempt from our laws that state murder is a crime?

Unfortunately any defined statement on equality is in itself a contradiction. Equality can only succeed if it gets cultural acceptance. If it is only accepted as a legal framework then this is open to abuse.

I know of a couple who tried to adopt. They were refused beacuse it was decided that they were not suitable at this time. there was no further explanation. was this discriminatory? Would it have been considered so if they were gay?
Similarly, there are laws against ageism in the workplace. If a couple in their late 60s tried to adopt would they be discriminated against? - of course they would. The reason is of course less clear. It is accepted that perhaps they would not make the best parents. Is someone with a criminal past likely to face the same discrimination? again the answer is yes.

This discussion should be less about religeous idealogies, and more about conducting real long term research into what is the best environment for the childs needs. This has probably been done with respect to potential adopters with a criminal past. Has the same longitudinal studies been completed to assess the suitability of gay couples to provide long term beneficial family environments, or interfaith families, single parents?

If the catholic adoption agencies want to refuse certain couples to its program then let them provide the proof. If the government want to overule them, then they should provide the proof.

To end with, nobody seems bothered that a private hospital will refuse me their services and discriminate against me based on the amount of money that I have.

I believe the church has a right to refuse people based on their belief. We all have our beliefs (I hope) and should be able to practice them without the fear of prosecution from anybody, as long as such practice does not endanger the life of an other.

Unfortunately, we live in an era where the government tries to influence our thoughts and behaviour, thereby creating a nation where everyone is behaviourly identical. People have their faiths and beliefs, and ultimately have the freedom to express that faith. Everyone seems to be looking at this from the gay person point of view, whatabout the Catholics right to express their point of view and practice their belief. Yes, no one is above the law, however, there are certain legislation that are an infridgement of people's rights.

"For the catholic church, a family includes a mother and a father and therefore they cannot place children into any other type of family unit."

But they are happy to place children with single people, which gives the lie to that argument. And there are many possible family structures -- sometimes sadly one parent dies, but surely even Catholics would not inform the remaining parent and children that they are no longer a family, because they don't have both mother and father!

Why should there be an exemption to the law for the irrational superstitions and prejudices of this one particular group? People should be free to practice religion privately if they really must, but it has no place in public life and should have no bearing on legislation like this.

This debate points to some more fundemental issues. Religious groups are stating that they are seperate from and above the principals of democracy and the rule of law. In dismissing a law designed to ensure that all are equal, religious groups are stating that they have no interest in equality and do not care if they undermine the principles of the society within which they live. They are the people for whom this law was designed. They are the people this law was designed to protect the innocent from.

So according to the Catholic Church and the Church of England...

It's ok for religious people to against gay people, but it's not OK for gay people to discriminate against religious ones.

The church has too much power in this country and it's about time it learnt the law applied to it too.

Remember this is the same Catholic Church that covered up when some members of it's clergy were abusing children.

The root of this has a lot to do with the question are we a purely secular state and thus going to rigorously enforce secular law, or should we allow opt outs in certain defined situations?

Currently we are of course a faith based state with an Established Church, we are subjects not citizens and our actual head of state is the head of the church too. This is more than an academic point and urgently needs addressing, eg it means the PM still can't be a practising Catholic.

We do allow opt outs currently, eg in employment if you want to employ somebody of a particular ethnic group or gender you can in quite a number of defined situations.

Just because I don't like or agree with the Catholic Church's stand on many things, do I still defend it's right to provide a service meeting the needs of the many people who follow this religion, well yes. To me it's the price of plurality, choice and democracy. If not we go down the French line of banning head scarves in school. I accept without fixed principles we have to struggle to find a balance but I think it's in that struggle and debate we understand life and our own values better.

As a Catholic, I have been following this issue with interest, and it's difficult for me to set down where my loyalties lie. I have gay friends and would not object to them adopting a child - especially as it might be the best chance he or she has, of a good life and loving home. But I do feel that to expect devout Catholics to go against their beliefs is too much to ask. I have been disturbed by all the 'religion bashing' on this page. I believe in God, why does that make me or anyone else ignorant or stupid? I do not try and force my beliefs on others, so it would be nice, if some of the people on this page and in life didn't talk about Catholics like some kind of hateful group. Many people behind the adoption organisations are good, kind people, who want and try to lead good lives, just like everybody else. Tolerance works both ways.

Martin Hoscik hit the proverbial nail on the head in his post. It's blatant hypocrisy and bigotry, being masked under pretence of religious conscience.

Do they bar unmarried adopters? No. Do they bar adopters who wear mixed fibres or eat shellfish? No. Do they bar adopters who go shopping on Sundays? No. But gay adopters? Ooh, suddenly it's a point of principle.

It's ironic that when looking for a word to describe such hateful and petty attitudes, one which fits so well is "un-Christian"...

Catholic bishop last night on Newsnight admitted they do allow adoptions to single gay people. No answer at all to justify why not to 2 gay people. Completely flawed logic - but religion isn't logical

As this legislation was coming why did Blair put Kelly in charge of it given she is the most prominent hardline Catholic in government? Crazy

People keep banging on about how an exemption exists allowing doctors to refuse to give an abortion. That has no relevance to this issue. If a woman goes to the NHS and asks for an abortion, an individual doctor can refuse to perform the operation, but the NHS as an organisation can not.

Donald Morrison states "When the law of the land contradicts God's law, then Christians must follow God's way". Presumably he then feels that the failed London bombers should escape punishment for their attempted crimes, as they were merely following what they perceived to be "God's way"? Before you say it, I know Jihadism is merely an interpretation of a religious text, and an extreme one at that, but the same could be said of his views on homosexuals. Or should exemptions only be made for his faith?

Donald Morrison also questions whether children fall into the categories of goods, facilities or services. Perhaps he's being deliberately obtuse, but the law is clearly relevant to the 'service' agencies provide of vetting prospective parents, counselling them, matching them with a child, and providing continued support post adoption.

I find it a little fanciful to describe ourselves as "rationalists" when I watch the looting taking place on Branscombe beach - but I digress.

The tension, it seems, in the debate seems not only a matter of principle - principles are clearly involved - but of principle v pragmatism. The government has the right to introduce legislation and the Catholic adoption agency has the right to cease operating if it considers there is a conflict between its practices and the law. However the government does not appear prepared to pay to fill the gap that may be left by such action.

Principles, it seems, carry a price tag - hardly makes them principles then. But perhaps I'm straying into the cash for honours debate!

Why is it that homosexuals who have rejected the heterosexual relationship want all the trappings of that relationship? Living together is one thing but marriage and children seem bizarre.

How ridiculous is this!!!!! Equality is equality...we cant pick and choose what is comfortable to our beliefs!!!

Doctors choosing not to abort is completely different....like comparing gays to peadophiles....its disgusting.

If a gay couple can give a good home...then let them....Religion has no place in laws of this country.

Religion is a choice....being gay is not!!!

And why have an equality minister who cannot reamin impartial....New labour....what an oxymoron that is.

Disgraceful. Why on earth to we constantly have to put up with political interference from organised religions.

The overwhelming majority of people in this country re secularist. Can you imagine the outrage from the churches if we descriminated against them.

The govenrment needs to get a grip and govern.

To no.3: The Bible is FAR from clear about whether or not homosexuality is a sin. The Old Testament condemns eating shellfish and orders the execution of women who have been impregnated through rape - are these also standards you wish to insist should be allowed today? As for the New Testament, Paul's words, whilst blaming homosexuality on man's corruption as a whole, carry no forbidding or punitive connotations. Moreover, many Christian denominations have no problem at all with gay people, some even ordaining them.

To suggest that the evangelical (fundamentalist) reading of the Bible, with all its own selectivity and interpretation, is "literal truth" and the only possible interpretation is, frankly, itself a blasphemy; to condemn on the basis of it goes directly against Jesus' own injunctions, and is very clearly identified as a sin. Yet these people would wish their own sin to be given the weight of law - ironically enough, to "protect their consciences"...?

Your conscience is what tells you whether your own behaviour is correct or not. That which seeks to condemn or eradicate certain behaviour in other people - that's something else entirely; it's not conscience, and it's certainly not righteous.

People cannot and should not be forced to accept practices against their concience. The Church can tolerate homosexuals, but the Church does not have to accept homosexuality as a right and proper thing to do. The Church can love homosexuals, but the Church cannot be forced to love homosexual acts. Why then in God's name should the Catholic Church be forced to place children with homosexuals? It's not rocket science, is it?

For once it appears I am on the same side as Bliar. If he is supporting the Church's viewpoint - which includes the Anglicans - then I am right behind him.
This is political correctness gone mad.
I would also be interested to hear the views of the Muslim community, who seem to be notably quiet.
I am not against gays per s茅, but the reality is they are not a "normal" family unit in the strictest sense.

Pardon me for asking, but isn't this the same Catholic Church's which has concealed and failed to deal with its own priests' sexual predations on children ?

how can the catholic church, with a history of protecting predatory peodophile priests possibly hold any views on placing children in the care of people who have consensual sex. have they no shame? is it just me that sees this as hypocracy of the most loathsome kind?

The institutions of the Catholic Church have in the recent past seemed more determined to protect the interests of priests accused of child abuse than to look after the needs of the children themselves. Why should we listen to their "concerns" now?

A point that is being missed in all of this is that while it is reasonable to have a law that forbids someone from doing something that they don't believe to be wrong, the law becomes oppressive if it forces someone to do something that they believe to be wrong.

If I believe that it is wrong for adopted children to be placed with gay couples, no law should force me to do it and I should be reasonably allowed to withdraw arranging adoptions. That is what I believe the Catholic Church are saying and I think that it is reasonable. It is for the government and the rest of us to decide whether this is a price worth paying.

By all means, argue about the rights and wrongs of people believing that gay adoption is wrong. However, if we stop respecting the right to believe in right and wrong, and to refrain from what we believe to be wrong, then we are on a very slippery slope. It is a long time since the Catholic Church moved away from enforcing a monopoly on belief, it is time for modern secularists to do likewise.
Sadly, Alan Johnson and many of the commenters here seem to want to eradicate religion and have a uniform, enforceable, secular morality and belief.

This debate is another indication of just how far this country has moved away from its Christian heritage, where the laws of the land were based on Biblical principles. The issues around this legislation will not just affect Christian adoption agencies, but also churches who may not want to hire out premises to gay and lesbian groups. It will also affect schools, who may be forced to promote homosexual relationships as being equal to heterosexual unions.

As a Christian I respect the rights of all people, including gays and lesbians. However, Christians also have rights and should not be forced to go against their principles which are based on clear Biblical teaching.

The primary force of "discriminate" is that of perceiving a distinction "between," not "against."

Every sensible person "discriminates" between individual people - those he likes, for example, and those he doesn't. And he may dislike them because of their behaviour, and choose not to associate with them.

And the law should not try and interfere, because if it does it will indeed look "a ass, a idiot" as Mr Bumble said!

To try and force people or organisations to accept behaviour which their conscience or personal feelings rejects is wrong.

I shall continue to discriminate between folk. I shall not try and disadvantage anyone!

You've almost got to laugh. This isn't 'the church', this is people saying this stuff. Individuals.

(Some) Christians get terribly upset about gays, and use the Bible to justify their position, yet completely ignore all the other laws of the OT (q.v. wearing clothes made of two cloths, selling your children into slavery, stoning people for sex outside marriage).

To anyone with a mind not stuck in the Middle Ages, it's clear that this picking and choosing is simply bigotry dressed up as religion. Sooner or later a stand will have to be taken.

This debate is not about anti-discrimination. Every major player in the debate is against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. This is about whether religious minorities are free to live - and to make their distinctive and positive contribution - according to conscience in a secular society. This freedom is essential. Without it, we are not living in a free society.

A matter of principle? It is somewhat late in the day for this Labour administration to start worrying about principles. A bit like Al Capone phoning up his accountant to make sure his income tax return was sent in on time.

Surely there is a "way through" in the definition of a "service". The adoption of a child is not just a "service" to the parents, like cleaning windows; it is deciding on a child's future, and therefore there is every justification for exempting it from the Act.

It looks a bit odd for the Catholic Church to be arguing about anything to do with children whilst it's still digging itself out of the horrors of its own child abuse scandals of the last few decades. The number of children abused by gays vs. the number of children abused by priests might make sobering reading for the bishops.

Judging the church by its actions rather than its stated ethics and it's a wonder anyone let's any children near it at all.

One of my closest friends is gay, but I have to say, if I were 2-years-old, mother and fatherless I would want to go to a mother and father, not to gay couple if I had a choice.
Shouldn't pockets still exist for different traditions? The church should still be allowed to operate in this pocket of belief and continue to evolve, without hate, just with a principle that needs an exemption so that these adoption agencies can go on successfully as they have for generations.
I am Catholic and also a liberal on many issues (this is possible, remember the Kennedys).
The Catholic church is not as intolerant as it is thought to be by those who were either not brought up going to mass every Sunday or those who were, but unlike me do not reflect fondly on the tradition, had a bad experience and lapsed.

The appeal to simply being 'rational' in this whole thing (as stated by some above) is simply naive: 'which rationality?', as they say. The fact of the matter is that we don't live in a world (and never have) where we can all 'justify' all of our 'beliefs' to anyone and everyone (prominently including our belief in other minds, etc.) - surely if postmodernism has taught us anything it is that.
I think the issue is far more complex, but at the least entails some sort of question on legislative morality. We "discriminate" against acts of murder, and so-called "anti-social behaviour", and rightly so. But these are not divorced from moral claims and stands. 'What is right should be allowed, what is wrong disallowed', might be a general rule (even if obfuscated at times). This debate considers claims about what is "right" in this case, and the groups are operating on two different systems of belief. Negotiating public law that gives full freedom of exercise to both systems may be impossible, but that is the challenge unless we are to claim that the one has a better public claim than the other. And that can't be done by just saying 'Be rational'.

Would we permit the Ku Klux Klan to discriminate against prospective black parents for adoption on the basis of their "honestly" held (but abhorrent) beliefs - of course not, so why then should prejudice and bigotry be allowed because the belief is based on so-called religious conviction? Society has decided that disrimination, whether in the guise of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion is wrong and there cannot be an exception in any situation to those rules.
I am a christian in the C of E and I am appalled that the Anglican church seems to be supporting the catholic church on this issue.

A senior gay liberal representative speaking on 5 Live yesterday indicated that he was not against individuals practicing their beliefs in the privacy of their homes, however, he was not willing to let this occur when in the public domain. Does this mean that he wants to ban all churches, and haven't we been here before with very messy consequences?

The main point, however, is that society is being asked to conform to a single prescribed model, assuming that we are wholly enlightened and that everyone else is therefore wrong. Isn't this what the secularists are accusing the religious leaders of? Instead of shouting about hypocrites, how about letting each of us live according to our moral compass, in so far as it does not infring the rights of others. If the Catholic adoption agency were the only one in the UK then there would need to be legislation to prevent discrimination. This is not the case, and the legislation needs to reflect this.

In a parallel situation, you may be aware that the government introduced legislation on accessibility to Public Buildings. In case you hadn't noticed, we are now some years into the new law and yet not every public building is completely accessible for people with a disability. The legislation was framed to allow for the reasonableness of the requirement to comply with the intentions of the Act. If it is good enough in that area, then why not here?

As a practising Jedi it is against my conscience to travel at less than Warp Factor 3. I am therefore seeking an exemption, on religious grounds, from all speed restrictions and all fines accrued when my vehicle fails to reach escape velocity.... well it makes as much sense as the Cardinal's views!

HOW ADOPTION WORKS
==================
(for some)

A religious teen does not want to have an abortion but feels she's too young to be a mother. She wants the child to be bought up by a Catholic mum and dad.
The government wants to take her rights away. A woman should have the RIGHT to choose the parents of her child. This legislation will take away the rights of the mother - the right to have the baby adopted by Catholics. She can ALREADY give the child to homosexuals if she wishes, so its not about them at all. Its about destroying the rights of women.

Get rid of the labour party. Vote Tory.

Why do we try to live a lie and legislate to enforce a lie? There are many different lifestyles and many different natural processes exclusive to different races and people. Gay people have a right to reach their full potential in life. However same sex parents is fals social engineering. Nature and evolution chose a hetrosexual binary family to procreate and provide for the gestation of children.

Human beings think they can manipulate nature through fostering equality in everything. This is dangerous and daft.

Tinkering with the natural order has been the the fascination of fascists for years.

I am a gay woman who bought up two children with my partner in the 80's and 90's.
Today as adults, they are two people who are intelligent, tolerant and well adjusted.
The problems that these children faced when growing up were not presented 'within a dysfunctional household' by my myself or my partner, but rather were by the small minded attitudes (rarely) presented by other children. These children were part of hetrosexual families whose views were being formed from their parents.

Due to their own upbringing encompassing beliefs in equality, our children were able to show tolerance to these other parties who had learnt small minded attitudes influenced from parents and from 'faith' based services in the area.

I am neither gay nor Catholic and cannot help but think that this is a power struggle between 2 groups rather than an attempt to achieve the best for children.

Gays want to have equality, no problem with that, Catholics wish to follow their doctrine, no problem with that, either.

Children could be left without care? Big problem with that!

If the Gay community creates adoption agencies which will replace the catholic agencies closed by the removal of funding & avoids children going back into local authority care (which sucks!) then I'll happily support them.

If it's just a case of muscles being stretched to see how much power they have then I'll support the churches stance.

Each group has its own agenda, but as usual it's piggy in the middle who'll end up losing out.

Another point, does this law mean that I can't be refused entry to a night club based on my standard of dress? It's discrimintating against my fashion sense (which is poor!) - What about naturists? are we going to see naked people roaming the streets because to stop them is discriminating against their right to go as god/evolution/Aliens intended...

This is a fake debate. Two groups, both with mistaken views, are in disagreement.

Homosexuals are mistaken about relationships; not wrong, not sinful, not immoral - just mistaken.

Christians are mistaken about creation; not wrong, not blasphemous, not immoral - just mistaken.

If we point out another's mistake and they ignore us then we should move on, not my problem - friend. Two mistaken groups in a dispute over mistaken views - no surprise there.

For those who haven't been keeping up with the legislation, the new laws also prevent gay clubs from discriminating against straight people - it does work both ways.

The position of the Christian church is thinly veiled blackmail designed to gather additional concessions by using the most emotive weapons they have. The fact atheists aren't discriminated against by some catholic adoption agencies speaks volumes, as does their cherry picking of which passages of the bible they interpret (it is notable how many other valid rules from the old testament almost all Christians choose to ignore).

Britain is largely a secular state and the organisations with their imaginary friends must comply with the law.

What we have here is a request by the Catholic Church for an exemption to common law based on religious belief.

If it gets granted then what is to stop the floodgates opening on this?

If my religious convictions enjoined me carry a loaded AK-47 at all times could I demand and get an exemption to the firearms laws on the basis of my religious beliefs?

UK law is based on precident - and this would set a very bad precident indeed.

Most of the comments seem to indicate that Christians have no place in this marvellous "all-inclusive" society we are building. Strange, given that 74% of Brits stated they were Christian in the last census, even if only 20% practice regularly. What percentage of our society is gay? 3%? 4%? And how many of those "practice" regularly? A loud, vocal minority crying "discrimination" is making the rest of us pander to their whims. The tail is wagging the dog is modern-day Britain. Yet another reason to be ashamed to be British.

I am a Catholic and I do believe that homosexual relationships are not the way that God wants us to live.

This does not mean that I am discriminatory against homosexuals either in the work place or in my social life. Everbody has choices in how they live their lives and if other people want to live out a homosexual relationship that is entirely their choice and they should be allowed to do so. It is absolutely the belief of the Church that God loves all men and women equally.

However, to expect the Catholic Church to grant equal adoption rights to couples following a homosexual lifestyle is unjust. The Church cannot, and should not, be a party to adoptions which it believes to be against God's will. If the end result of this unfortunate proposal is that Catholic agencies have to close, then a small but important part of the adoption network in this country which places children into loving families will be destroyed.

There should be a role for a variety of adoption agencies, including those such as Catholic agencies which seek to put children exclusively into heterosexual families. The Catholic agencies apparently account for just 4% of the country's adoptions and the maintenance of agencies following Christian beliefs in the context of sexual relationships is not going to prevent those who disagree with the Church's view from pursuing their plans through other agencies.

This proposed measure, and indeed many of the comments in this thread, are a growing example of an intolerance and hostility to religion in this country. The Churches must stand firm on this issue and must be faithful to their beliefs that God's will is for men and women to live in a heterosexual relationship.

Jeff (posting 12 above) has it about right. The Catholic church - any Christian church - does not have the monopoly on offering adoption services, and in fact form a minority of the services offered. Why must the staff of these services be forced to action that contravenes their beliefs when any gay couple can go to any local authority and be welcomed with open arms?
Please, people - I know this is something that raises passionate objections, but get real!

I am amazed at the amount of controversy this has caused. Of course, everyone has their own faiths, and this of course shapes their conciences. In the word of the bible, practicing homosexuality is a fundamental sin, and therefore the small propertion of adoption agencies, which are Catholic, regard being forced to place children with gay couples as going against the word of God.

As someone naively pointed out earlier, it is not possible to prove in qualntifiable terms that this higher entity actually exists, but that is beside the point. What is wrong with giving the small percentage of these adoption agencies immunity to this legislation and leaving the vast majority of agencies to place children in gay homes? People would say this is discrimination, but if 96% of all agencies are prepared to place children with gay couples, then is it not possible to allow 4% to obey the word of thier God, and not, in their eyes, sin? Maybe this would open the flood gates, but in my opinion this a unique situation and it is not possible to apply standard principles to this. Common sense should prevail and see that to many people, obeying their God is far more important than obeying the laws of the land.

Hubert claims being gay is not a matter of choice but what nature has dealt them. (I do not accept that, in the majority of cases it is a matter of choice.) That notwithstanding surely the point is that NATURE has denied them the possibility of having children so why do they expect to be able to adopt. It is unnatural for children to have same sex parents and that's a fact!

If religious faiths conscience is sucessfully used as an argument to gain exemption, it will give birth to bastard legislation. An un-equal equality bill. When conscience is interpreted using an obsolete form: strict and reverential observance; it must be understood that this necessitates an inobservance to rationality.

Clearly there is no legal debate to be found here and faith in the Law Lords should be countenanced. Why then? is the government of the United Kingdom allowing itself to be influenced by faith groups. Mis-representing the majority vote is not the business of democracy.

I am not a Roman Catholic, and have no love for the Roman Catholic Church, however, I do support their stance on this issue.

Homosexual couples should not be permitted to adopt children. At worst, the child is simply an accessory that their sexuality prevents them from having in the normal manner, at best, you have a child ( who has no say in the matter ) being brought up in extraordinarily bizarre circumstances. The damage to the psycholgical wellbeing of the child may be immense.

I don't really care what the law says, my beliefs come first and foremost, and if sticking to those means breaking the law, then so be it. No of law of man can supercede the law of God, and therefore, with the practice of homosexuality being clearly labelled an abomination by scripture, there is no way that I for one would allow this equality law to change the way I live my life. I therefore fully support the exemption.

And a note for Simon McMahon (#7): you've made clear your ignorance in your post, as the Bible can be proved to be the word of God in so many different ways. And by proved, I mean unequivocally, not just some flimsy argument open to all sorts of debate.

It's interesting how people can post comments on how unjust it is for anyone to discriminate against anyone else or treat them in a derisory manner due to them being part of a certain 'grouping', yet feel that it's perfectly justified to lambaste Catholics for wanting the freedom to follow their beliefs without imposing them on others. Are they asking for Gay couples not to be allowed to adopt? No. Are they asking for the right to follow their consciences and provide what they believe (either rightly or wrongly) to be in the best interests of the children in question? Yes.

Should people who like eating meat be allowed to? Of course. But should all restaurants have to serve meat?

In practical terms I cannot see that discrimination (if thats what it really is) by the Catholic Church against adoption by gay couples is causing any harm whatsoever. This stance does not in any way disadvantage gay couples as there are plenty of alternative routes to adoption available.

It is a fundamental and very long held belief taken from the Bible that relations between homosexuals is wrong. This belief is not imposed upon society by the Church unlike the situation where the Government is trying to impose their belief upon society.

It is impossible for the Catholic Church to comply with this proposed legislation because it is directly in conflict with a deep belief which is not unreasonable to hold.

Therefore, to say that the Catholic Church is trying to blackmail the Govt by threatening closure of the RC adoption agencies is outrageous.

If I were Ruth Kelly I would be livid if an exemption is not allowed and so should Mr. & Mrs. Blair and family be also.

I have to support the churches in this issue, and I would go further.
You cannot legislate against people finding gay relationship obnoxious, anymore than you can legislate against a fear of spiders.
In the eyes of God and Nature, a child has a father and a mother, and finding an adoptive home makes normality a priority. Otherwise, the child is being thrust into a situation not guided by his/her will. That child may grow up to hate gay relationships, possibly influenced by outside pressures, even if he/she was brought up in such an environment.
Legislating against open discrimination towards gay people is one thing, but legislation making it legal to "force" any third party to live within a gay relationship is an entirely different matter.

I wish everyone would calm down ! Catholic agencies are motivated to provide social care, they do this to ALL sections of society and in yes that includes homosexual and lesbian people. before you lamblast them all why don't you find out about the work they do , with the disabled, the lonely, the mentally ill. Dogma has nothing to do with it, everyone is treated with respect . Adoption is about creating families and the churches have aways promoted marriage as the best foundation for family life. You may not agree with them but they have been consistent. In the meanwhile we have this huge political/religious row and when all the shouting about principles/ rights is over who will be thinking about the needs of children?.

I feel reading this site that most people are missing the point of the Church. It is fundamentally about love. And it is this love that guides the people who are making this stand for exemption.They do this to protect there beliefs ,that so many of the comments seem to sneering at.Yet has the CHURCH actually said anything to deserve this kind of reaction . All it wishes to do is show this love while still adhereing to GODS TEACHINGS. SHOULD they be prevented!I feel not! There is such great need for its services. TOLERANCE IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THIS ISSUE. AND TO DO GOOD

Ultimately this shows the folly of trying to legislate against personal behaviour or conscience. As we found with the laws on religious discrimination, trying to legislate choices is quite impossible.

As it has never happened before we cannot know if same sex couples are able to provide the same level of care as heterosexuals, the danger may be that we are putting children at risk to satisfy parents? It is perfectly reasonable for Catholics to raise these issues. They are not attempting to force anyone to agree. Quite why any opposing group should believe their views should be enshrined in law is completely beyond me. If it happened in this case, it would only go to show that the government has lost their argument and so must resort to intolerance.

Arrogance does not play well, by all means try to persuade us, but any show of force will naturally cause people to do the opposite of what they are told. In this case to close adoption agencies rather than provide the services the government wants. Legislation against freedom or choice is always counterproductive.

Religious beliefs are subjective, change over the time, and are religious rather than scientific because they have no method of verification.
For these reasons alone they should NEVER be included in law, on any issue.
Haven't racism & slavery been justified historically by religious beliefs.
I view this issue as merely another example of people (ab)using religion to justify something which cannot be justified by anything else.

If the Catholic Church wishes to opt of a law because of it's "conscience", then can I chose not to pay my License fee as my conscience tells me I shouldn't have to pay it...

I can hardly believe that the Catholic Church is claiming that it will be the victim of "unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discrimination", should their adoption agencies be held to the same standards, made subject to the same laws, and basically treated exactly the same as any other adoption agency. Surely this is the very opposite of discrimination?

It seems all the more outrageous when you consider that the form this so-called 'discrimination' will take is for them to not be allowed to discriminate against others. How come I haven't heard any journalists put this to one of the church's representatives? Is it considered too risky to accuse the church of duplicity and double-standards?

This is a no brainer; the law is the law.

Moral codes are a personal matter and should not be exercised where they discriminate against or harm individuals.

History teaches us that whenever religion has had a strong influence on government we have ended up with the worst kinds of infringements of human rights, e.g. the crusades (ordered by the Pope), the disillusionment of the monasteries, the persecution of the Catholics from Elizabeth I to James I, etc. and are still going on today.

Most religions teachings are generally about loving, understanding and forgiving, in practices the opposite applies and they are more about are about exclusion and discrimination.

Religion must be kept out of Government and one 鈥榓gency鈥� must not be allowed to discriminate against another 鈥榓gency鈥� on individual moral or personal beliefs.

It is not simply a case of hypocrisy from local Church leaders. It is a case of "too little too late". Successive leaders have sat back and done nothing to educate the public about the true nature of Christianity. Instead, many have openly embraced the anti-Christ even 'ordaining' homosexual or lesbian clergy (as if they ever had such authority to ordain anyone!). Now the impact of their liberal theology (liberal theology is a pc term for 'The philosophies of men') is beginning to show. Now they throw up their hands in apparent horror and claim to be supporters of Christian principles, which principles they never understood in the first place.

Another thing: implicit in these arguments, is the concept that discrimination is somehow always wrong. One questions this assumption. If someone consistently harms you, or your loved ones, is there not an obligation on your part to defend? Is there not an obligation to discriminate and deny them access? The same for the arguments presented by the anti-Christs of this World. Either something is right or it is not. Defending your own against attacks on one's personal freedom and belief is right and proper. Homosexuals, lesbians, PCs, HRs, all have one thing in common: they all are anti-Christ and anti-Family. They are examples of: "The Devil will come as an angel of light to deceive the hearts of men". And so I suggest: "Chose ye this day whom ye will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

Even if you do not believe in God, common sense should tell us that a child should be raised in a family environment with a mother and a father. This is the natural order of things. To put these very vunerable children into an environment whereby both parents are same sex is just morally wrong. I dont think this is gay bashing. Being gay is how these people were born and I am sure most are happy with their life but that is not to say they should insist on changing the natural order of things just to accommodate them - especially where children are concerned.

MORALLY WRONG!

This is a wonderful example of damned if you do, damned if you don't. It is almost like holistic discrimination. If you snub the Catholic Church, it would be accurate to describe the Government as discriminating against Catholics and others who have the same religious bent and if you snub gays, you are discriminating against gays.

Why don't we just ask what is best for the child? Because in the end of that day, that is what really matters.

"God's word says it is wrong and no amount of legislation is going to change that fact"

Yes, a fictional character says it's wrong, so that's the end of it.

Come off it.

To the person who said "we should look at the sustainability of these relationships"... you clearly know nothing about the adoption process. Adoptive parents are rigourously vetted on all aspects of their lives, which includes the integrity of the relationship. Don't forget that heterosexual marriages only last an average of 11 years, and the divorce rate is sky high, so you can't possibly put that argument forwards as a reason for preventing gay parents from adopting.

It is interesting that the Church of England has entered this debate on the same side as the Catholic Church:
The Queen is the Head of the Church of England, but also appoints her government to legislate on her behalf. She is therefore at the head of both opposing groups involved in this argument.

Perhaps we should just ask for a ruling from Buckingham palace?

There should be no conflict between religious belief and legal practice because the influence of religion has no place at the heart of government or within legal practice.

Religion has no co-option on moral right.

The idea that a law could be passed outlawing discrimination but expressly allowing one group to continue to discriminate is so stupid it is beyond belief.

The main point appears to have been conveniently forgotten. Adoption is supposed to be for the benefit of the children. Has anyone stopped to wonder what effect having gay parents could have on them? The possible bullying, ostracising, even attacking, just because they are 'different'? Children are naturally cruel often without realising what they are doing is wrong. Think of the kids, for once, and forget the politics and religion!

To me this seems like a crunch that has been coming for a while. Who has the greater rights in equality?? Either homosexual's are more equal in this country or religious people are. Who's going to be treated better??

This is exactly why tolerance is a bad idea. Tolerance is linked to ignorance and dislikening. I RESPECT both Catholics and homosexuals. I firmly believe if both sides could respect each other, we could reach a landmark conclusion

This is called 'God's word', but in reality the Bible, most scholars would agree, was a book written millennia ago, by perfectly ordinary men and women, when people were less open to different lifestyles. Quite apart from arguments about the authority the bible, I disagree fundamentally with the Church here: not everyone, by a long shot, is Christian and Christians have no right to impose their beliefs on people who do not hold them. If this is to be allowed then the next logical step is to allow Muslims who desire to to practise sharia law, and stone adulterers as occurs in some parts of Asia and Africa. Religion is free, but has no place in the law.

All adoption agencies discriminate to a certain extent, ruling out older parents and those of a different ethnic background. The difference is they base it on the needs of the child. The Catholics have a problem because they want to call the shots but be funded by public money. It is the same with the so called faith schools, where they put in a small amount of funding, then make their own admission rules, causing problems for other schools in the area. If they want to have their own way, they should not ask for public funding.

I know if I was unfortunate enough to be relying on the Church to find me adoptive parents I would rather have loving and comfortably off gay or lesbian parents than spend my life in Care.

In reply to David Meggitt:

How on Earth is such a test useful? The percentage of homosexual couples adopting is small as others have pointed out. It is incredibly improbable that all adoptees will be channelled to gay couples.

And even if this were the case, a parents' sexuality has little to do with the sexuality of their children, adopted or otherwise (Indeed a generation of children raised by gay parents could well be far more enlightened and accepting than current generations!).

And implying that the church should be allowed to discriminate against gay adopters to prevent such a far fetched scenario ever arising borders on the ridiculous.

I've recently started a new religion and have many, many members, too many to count or I would tell you. This new law has me in a right pickle. We believe that red haired people are the spawn of Satan and yet now we are exepected to treat them as equals to those of us with normal coloured hair. Now the bible makes it perfectly clear that red-haired people are abnormal 'I am the light sayeth the Lord.' this implies quite clearly that those with red hair are trying to be sunlike, pretending to be the light, therefore anti-christ, get it?

Thankfully I have a friend in Tony Blair, Jesus as well of course, and he says he will sort it all out for me.

I don't know whether placing children with same-sex couples is a good idea or not. I haven't researched it so don't know whether same-sex couples are more or less stable than "traditional" couples, neither do I know whether it's possible for a same-sex couple to bring up a child as "gay" (but I doubt it). What I DO know, is that allowing any individual or group of individuals to be above the law simply because of something they read in an ancient book is dangerous nonsence.

Do Catholic adoption agencies refuse to allow atheists to use their services also? Surely non-belief is a sin as well - or are some sins worse than others these days?.

If you desire your neighbour's house - another sin - does that bar you also?

Seems some sins are considered worse than others in the church's view.

All this nonsense from fairytales.

The true test of any viewpoint on this issue is to ask oneself: "Should people working in the services industry be allowed to discriminate against a person on the grounds that the person is, for example, Christian?"

If the answer is no, clearly the church's position on the gay rights question is untenable.

If the answer is yes, so be it. Is that what the church really wants?

I do wish the millions of gay and lesbians people in the UK could have the same representative structure as those of the Catholic faith does. And these individual who represent gay and lesbian people (community leaders) could step in to bully the government just like the Catholics constantly do.

A black person can't help being born black. Are gays born gay?

Religion is an individual act, a choice. Society is a collective that must represent all.

Religion and individual beliefs have their place but that place is not on the political stage. Why are there still Bishops sitting in the House of Lords, what place do they have in the political process?

The churches stance on adoption shows why they do not deserve a place in mainstream life. Why are we relying on the church to provide any service to the nation other than being there for the individual?

Adoption agencies should be there for the benefit of the childrens physical and emotional wellbeing, not a religious group trying to force its own outdated agenda into public life.

Would these adoption agencies refuse to work with parents from another religious background because they did not match their ticksheet of 'values'? Can you imagine the riots that would cause?

At a time when throughout the world too much suffering is already created in the name of religious beliefs the simple answer for the cabinet has to be no otherwise they will be responsible for state sponsored discrimination. Its time to show this is the 21st century not the 17th.

The hypocrisy of the Catholic church is breathtaking. Do they seriously expect us to accept "religious beliefs" as an excuse for being exempt from laws? It's illegal in this country to stone people to death because they have committed adultery, yet some interpretations of Islam require that that is exactly what you should do. Would the Cardinal like to argue that muslims should be exempt from the laws that make it illegal to stone people to death?

And anyway, if this whole thing is genuinely driven by religious belief, rather than straightforward homophobic bigotry, Catholic adoption agencies should also refuse to place children with anyone who eats shellfish, which the Bible describes in pretty much the same terms as homosexuality. I wonder whether they do?

No matter what way this plays out, the people who will be affected the most are (yet again) the vulnerable and voiceless.

I am a Christian youth worker, and I sympathise with the position the Catholic church is in, however a fundamental part of faith and religion is freedom of choice.

The church simply must allow homosexual couples to adopt and my reasons are more theological that sociological. God has given all of us free will, this results in things like murderers walking free and thieves never being caught etc, this shows God is gracious and will not intervene directly regardless of the severity of the action. (bear with me)

The theological practical nature of grace also means that people can choose to reject following God without fear of being struck down by lightening, meaning that people can freely walk the streets campaigning against all things Christian.

Grace results in non Christians freely living lives which go against what God would choose for them, however it also results in Christians vigorously proclaiming what is wrong with the world, and seeking to bring everyone else into line. This is not always a bad thing as many Christians were at the heart of anti slavery practices, setting up health care and education and also are pretty vocal on third world issues too.

The problem comes when in an attempt to be a moral conscience to an increasingly secular society, the church forgets the concept of grace. God seems happy to let homosexuals live lives without zapping them from the sky, however it鈥檚 the Christians which deny them this luxury/right.

When Christians force standards onto individuals, which are underpinned by the teaching of the Bible - they are forgetting that those standards should be chosen first, not drafted into legislation and made law. The bible is not a tool for oppression, it is all about providing people with choice - showing them another way to live. A way which cannot be forced onto people but one which must be chosen by people.

Sure the catholic church can campaign against homosexual people adopting, but the second it denies homosexual couples the right to adopt children from their agencies - it stops being a Christian agency and starts being a discriminatory one as they have removed the concept of grace and replaced it with retribution and consequence - 鈥測ou don鈥檛 believe what I do, so clear off鈥� so to speak.

I am a heterosexual atheist, with a few gay and lesbian friends. I do not agree with the catholic church in their vitriolic condemnation of homosexuality, but am horrified that nobody seems to think about the rights of the children. They are not status symbols to satisfy the egos of adults. I have no doubt some homosexual couples would be exemplary and doting parents, but I have to question why it is regarded as a "right" that everybody should have children. I don't have children of my own, purely as a result of lifestyle choices I made for myself. Surely, gays and lesbians have responsibility for their own choices?

I think a number of the responses are missing the fundamental point about the nature of this debate. Whether you "believe" or not, as quite a few people clearly don't, is not the point. This is not a question of the relative merits of religion within society, which clearly people have strong views about on both sides. It is always possible in any debate to rely upon extremes to try and argue whether religion has overall had a positive impact on society. Would the violence and murder of the crusades have occurred without religion, possibly not. But would individuals like Mother Teresa have been inspired to commit their lives to aiding those less fortunate in society without the inspiration of religious teaching and example, again possibly not.

It is the position is that within our society we already have a number of enshrined practices, based upon religion and the fact that historically this state has been to varying degrees a Christian state, that discriminate against same sex couples. For example a man and a woman have a legal right to be married within their parish Anglican church, as long as they comply with the formalities of the Marriage Act and meet its requirements. That right applies irrespective of their religious beliefs or lack thereof (yes the parish priest can refuse to conduct the service but must arrange an alternative priest).

A same sex couple do not have that right. Yes, there is an alternative for same sex couples through civil partnership (incidentally as there is with non-religious adoption agencies) which provides the same legal consequences, but the Marriage Act still discriminates against same sex couples. So we already have one state sponsored "exception" to the Equality Act. Absolute equality is a myth, society is and always as been about balancing the competing rights of individuals.

The wider issues here are whether the state should (as it clearly can) legislate in such away as to force certain sections of its citizens to choose between obeying the law or following the dictates of their conscience, in this case the freedom to follow the dictates of a particular faith. This is a question of how far the state should be permitted to encroach upon a person's individual rights and freedoms to live their lives according to their conscience in order to guarantee the rights and freedoms of other sections of our society. How would we all feel if the state suddenly decided that everyone had to do military service without any alternatives, irrespective of conscientious objection or pacifist viewpoints.

I think this is also simply another example of the increasing conflicts between different sections of society as to whose "rights" should be paramount.

The sad thing is that it seems likely that if this law is passed then those who hold a deep seated religious view on the issue are likely to simply decide that they cannot continue to work for an adoption agency which operates a policy contrary to their conscience. The net result will be that those agencies will close, to the detriment of children who would otherwise be placed through those agencies.

I see the letters from the Catholic and Anglican church more in the vein of bringing to the government's attention the potential consequences of the legislation, rather than blackmail. Is this not exactly what every representative group in society does when it feels that new laws may impact adversely on those it looks to represent?

However crazy, stupid or laughable it may sound to non-believers, there are undoubtedly people who would conclude that to continue working for an agency that considers same sex couples as adopters would be contrary to God's teachings and would therefore imperil their immortal soul and prospects of being admitted to heaven. But why should we no more protect their individual rights to follow that belief than the rights of a same sex couple to live in a legally recognised partnership with the full benefits and protection of the law?

I am happy for the Catholic church to believe whatever they like - it is not possible to legislate away beliefs. The problem comes when these beliefs are manifested in a way that impacts on people who have not chosen to subscribe to them.

These beliefs have no place in the laws of the land, and should have no impact on finding homes for desperately needy children. The fact that Catholic organisations would leave a child in care rather than place it with loving gay parents is unjustifiable. They claim it is a matter of conscience, but how does their conscience reconcile itself to this unnecessary suffering?

Donald Morrison: "When the law of the land contradicts God's law, then Christians must follow God's way."

Of course, Muslims could say the same thing and insist that Sharia Law has ascendancy over the law of the land too. I'd be interested in seeing how Christians act when Muslims apply Sharia law to them.

The solution to this is simple. The Catholic adoption agencies and any other organisations or businesses that have issues of conscience must adhere to the law or close. That's the price we pay for full and consistent equality.

Divorce is also strictly against Catholic beliefs. Does this mean Catholic agencies have the right to refuse adopting children to parents in, say, their 2nd marriage? What about mixed marriages, where one partner is protestant the other catholic? Are any objections to be raised there?

I would like to think that religious organisations are subject to the law of the land just as any other in this country.

1. Most homosexuals are raised by heterosexuals so there doesnt seem to be a directly causal link - is it this the church is scared of?

2. How come celibate men with no experience of adult loving relationship have ANY kind of credible standpoint in this?

3. Catholic prejudice regarding contraception (they just want more punters) generates alot of unwanted infants anyway, so how do they get the right to be so anachronistic and intractible on this issue?

This debate is only partly about homosexuality. The deeper issue, and the one which has prompted the Anglican archbishops to rally behind the Catholic Church, is that of their members being placed in a position where they are being forced to act against their consciences. In attempting to outlaw discrimination against gay couples (a worthy aim), the government's legislation as proposed would force Catholic adoption agencies to act in ways which conflict with the teaching of their church. The warning that this would cause them to shut down is not blackmail but a legitimate step. If I were employed by a firm whose practices changed so as to place me in the position of having to participate in practices I believed to be wrong, I would be morally justified in resigning from that firm and removing myself from the conflict of interests. This is all the Catholic agencies are proposing to do. The compromise they have offered (a statutory duty to refer gay couples to other agencies) would allow them to retain their integrity and continue to provide valuable services. It is one thing for society to ask groups to cease practices which are harmful or deeply offensive (e.g.: foxhunting, forced marriage), but quite another to attempt to force someone to act against their own deeply held beliefs.

Hypothetical question:

I'm a single person and I lead a celebate life. I would like to adopt a child. I approach one of these agencies and they agree that I would be a good parent and the adoption goes through.
Several years pass. Both the child and I are happy and love each other.
Now the feelings I have repressed for years come to the fore (I've repressed them because my religion finds them unacceptable). I finally find the courage to come out.

What do the bigots do then????

The cabinet must stand firm, this is about equality legislation. To allow the very organisations who are the most vocal in their denigration and criticism of homosexuality and gay and Lesbian relationships and who state that they wish to discriminate, to have an exemption from anti discrimination legislation would be obscene. Like allowing the Klu Klux Klan to be exempt from racist legislation because of their strongly held beliefs or conscience. That's what it feel like to me as a gay man. Surely Gay and Lesbian couples who naturally are less likely to have children of their own, are currently and potentially (if they felt they would be taken seriously) a great source of adoptive parents to needy children. Now that our relationships are recognised by the state and couples like myself and my partner of 14 years can be considered as adoptive parents, I feel there will be an uspsurge in gay and lesbian couples wanting to adoptor foster children. To allow this religious exemption would be cruel in the extreme to those who would like to adopt and to the needy children who could benefit. It sends a message that there is something wrong with gay and Lesbian parents. What about todays children who will be tomorrows gay men and Lesbians. I want them to grow up with less prejudice and discrimination and denigration than I have had to live with, I want the state to treat them with respect and equality, not to privilege religious belief over their rights and their needs to form relationships with each other.

The Christian Church, as with all religions, has one main insurmountable problem. It is bound wholly to its rule book, in this case the Bible. No matter how hard it tries, and to its credit it has tried very hard recently, it cannot circumvent its holy words.

Christianity can of course bend their words, manipulate them, reinterpret them and even ignore them at times, but when an issue, such as homosexuality, strikes right at the very heart of its core beliefs then the bigot hidden deep within even the most liberal of Christians must rear its ugly head.

Although, in their defence, if they did not stand up for their core principles they might as well all pack up and go home, because what is the point if having an irreducible core, when that core can actually be reduced to nothing. Unless of course you鈥檙e a Tory... in which case double think is a part of your everyday life and your core can be changed just as readily as the warp core on the Star Ship Enterprise, if need be.

Odd how the Catholics keep banging on about how the Bible states that God thinks Homosexuality is wrong. They also seem to think Homosexuality is a "lifestyle" choice rather than something you are born with.

Perhaps they can then explain why Scientists have discovered that at least 10% of most animals are gay. That's right, everything from horses to sheep naturally prefer mating with others of the same sex. But of course Catholics choose to ignore this because it doesn't fit into their "beliefs".

The upshot is that religion should be about helping the less fortunate in our society, not about imposing their misguided beliefs on others. If the Catholic agencies do close those poor children who are hardest to place will suffer. Surely a child has the right to the love and security of parents no matter whether they are 2 men, 2 women, single people, obese people, unintelligent people etc. All that matters is that the child needs a good home and Catholics shouldn't hold their future to ransom this way over their outdated beliefs.

I doubt God himself would approve of their actions.

It seems to me that this debate has been incorrectly divided by those who have some religious faith and those who do not.

For the record I do not have any religious faith - however I do find that the idea of two people who could not ordinarily become parents through the natural order of things suddenly have the legal right to become parents.

Surely a child's welfare is the most important issue here - not the rights and wrongs of religion - is it fair that a child be put into an 'unnatural' family structure?

Sometimes I wish the law of common sense would prevail. Rather than allowing the subject of religion to jaundice people's views (people seem obsessed with being against religious people and their views), think about what might constitute the 'ideal' situation.

Sex outside of marriage, be it heterosexual or homosexual, increases the chances of both contracting AIDS or other STDs and unwanted pregnancies, possibly leading to abortion or children with separated parents. The common sense view would be to abstain outside of marriage, which coincidentally is the same as the Church.

Regarding adoption, I'm sure their view on suitability is also the common sense view. This does not prescribe a married heterosexual couple as the only option, but in most cases I would expect it to be the best option for the child, which is surely what is most important.

As a devout Roman Catholic I feel agrieved at some of these comments. The Catechism of the Church makes it plain that the Church regards homonsexuals as people created in God's image and for that reason entitled to love and respect. We wholly reject discrimination, including against Gays.

The Catholic Church's position on Gay adoption follows from its beliefs in what the ideal expression of our sexuality and family life should be. The Church believes that every child should grow up with loving parents wedded in the sacrament of matrimony. For these reasons a non-married hetrosexual couple will not be seen as an ideal environment to adopt a vulnerable child either. Suitable single people means "suitable" within the context of this teaching.

It is noteworthy that Catholic Adoption agencies target the most vulnerable of children in our society, those most difficult to place, those left behind. Yet many of you say we have no right to do this work. The Church will have no choice but to close down its agencies if they are not given an opt out, because this is the only way it can comply with the laws of Parliament without cutting across its own beliefs. The beliefs of the Global Church, the most diverse institution on Earth, are not subject to man-made laws.

One point that doesn't seem to have figured so far is the number of children in the uk in care who do not have a family or permanent home of their own. Many of these children will never be adopted and grow up in care. The person who was adoped at 6 weeks was comparitavely lucky as at that age there would be no problem for any agency in finding them a home, but what about older children who, for no fault of their own, do not have a family to raise them? Should they be raised in care or adopted by people who want to care for them, even though they don't comply with societies view of a normal family? Which is in the child's best interestes?

I'm catholic and have adopted two children via a loal authority agency.

There is much we need to improve on in order to help place more children more quickly.

The firmly held vews of unelected, unrepresentative social workers hold far more sawy than any religious organisation. We could think about that, but this argument is simply a distraction. We should find a way to work around it and move on.

The rights of individuals not to suffer discrimination cannot be equated with the imagined rights of a public body for religious reasons or any other, to continue discriminating. The difference between the 鈥榬ights鈥� of same-sex couples and the 鈥榬ights鈥� of religious bodies must be ascertained on the bases of the difference between one鈥檚 ethnic, biological or genetic background, i.e. what one 鈥榠s鈥�- where there is no choice 鈥� as against what one has 鈥榗hosen鈥� through religious belief.Why should religion, as opposed to everyone else, be accorded preferential treatment?, or be given special privileges?

Inn response to Hubert's comments that Gay bars shouldn't be allowed to put up signs saying "No Staights" - the equality act does just that - NO ONE will be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation!

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!

Suggesting homosexual relationships are equal to a heterosexual couple in parenting terms is a claim too far. Homosexuals are not physically capable of bearing children, and their joint intellectual and emotional outlook is a less capable basis for raising children than that of a heterosexual relationship. On scientific and moral grounds they fail to make the cut. Repetition and emotional blackmail doesn鈥檛 change this.

In a parallel issue, the equality argument has been stretched beyond snapping point with episodes of Doctor Who, which is supposed to be mainstream family entertainment, having multiple incidences of overt sexual and homosexual behaviour. This is not about equality or maturity, it鈥檚 about a vested interest gaming the system for its own advantage.

I raised the issue of institutional and individual bullying with my MP, who is openly gay. Instead of sticking to the issue, he pressed his own agenda on me. Well, this may be his concern but I wasn鈥檛 impressed with the self-serving propaganda. And that鈥檚 the problem they need to address, they need to stop forcing their minority view on everyone else.

Equality and equivalence are not the same thing.

Two quick points:

(1) It is a false dichotomy between "Christianity" and "politics". To be a Christian is, by its very nature, a political thing, because everything you do and everything you are is bound up together. So, any part of the Christian Church (in this case the Catholics) will rub up against non-Christians, including non-Christian politicians, where they don't share the same principles and values. It's inevitable, and we have to accept that it's inevitable. To imagine that Christians can go and practise their "religion" "in private" is, frankly, na茂ve.

(2) "Discrimination" is the wrong word for what the Catholic Church is talking about. They will signpost gay couples to other agencies, but they themselves can't, in all good conscience, go along with adoption to gay couples. To do something in all good conscience is not the same as being discriminatory. It is simply to say that something cannot be done with integrity. As they aren't pushing for a total ban on adoption to gay couples, they can't be accused of being "discriminatory" by the standards of the very people who are attacking them.

To be honest, it seems clear to me that this is about forcing a view on to people who genuinely can't agree with that view. It is about people in the Government and the political machinery (especially the Labour Party) wanting to wield their power to inflict harm on the Catholic Church and on Christians everywhere. Well, there comes a point where Christians won't accept the choice that's put before them (i.e. go along with what we say, or go out of business). They will say that they will go on helping children in need. And those who would stop them doing that will have to do it.

I think everyone has forgotten that what is at stake is the interest of the child. I can totally understand that in most of the case, social workers may actually find it better for a child to be with a mom and a dad. Although, each case is different. There may be kids whose experiencies in a traditional family have been so not enriching (to put it politely) that they might better have two moms or two dads. Actually, there is an interesting case in Costa Rica (a deeply conservative catholic country), where a child was given in adoption to a transgender person because it was found that it was in the best interest of the child. Besides, I know many gay men and women who could be much better parents than many straight couples. So here, is not what arethe parents rights, is what are the children's rights, and in some cases, those rights may much better be protected by opening up to gay adoption.

What is the point of any legislation that attempts to coerce a change in peoples hearts and minds....you cannot legislate to alter what is in a persons heart/soul/mind...

Education, experience and even enlightenment may do so, but laws will never get at the root.

Iain writes that "there is no difference (between same sex or heterosexual couples) as long as the couples love each other". That is a profoundly naive statement and just goes to demonstrate that this is too much a debate about the rights of parents rather than the rights of children. How can anyone say that a child already born into a disadvantaged situation would have anything other than a terribly difficult life dealing with the inevitable playground taunts that would come with gay parents? Much as the parents might love the child and each other, love is not the issue here.

Tony Blair and his Government are being hoist on their own politically correct petard. Some of those commenting are missing the point by their anti Catholic comments.
Firstly, all religions have principles which they adhere to. So far the Catholic Church have had the guts to say where they stand. But do contributors really think that some of the other faiths do not share these views e.g. Islam? If you are serious about acknowledging the rights of gays why should that be at the expensive of the rights of others to disagree. The turkeys have finally voted for an early Christmas...Lets know how it all works out!!!!!

Hi Nick

In the past the BEEB have taken a lot of stick about having its own agenda.. Seriously how can you or anyone deny it when the 大象传媒 went to town on alleged racism in big brother which any one could see was no more than Bullying and totally ignore the dispatches programs about islam here in this country.. Also while banging on about alleged racism again letting Blair and new labour off the hook A good day to bury bad news? Every day is when the 大象传媒 are on side..

"Has anyone stopped to wonder what effect having gay parents could have on them?"

Yes. And as yet there's absolutely no evidence that children with same-sex parents fare any worse than children with a mother and a father, so let's just nip that one in the bud straight away.

It's quite simple, really. While the church as a culture might not have a tenable reason for its desire to be exempted from this case, it has every reason, once the legislation is passed, to react with civil disobedience. Indeed, it must.

I really wanted to respond to what Simon McMahon wrote up there:

"And to hear him procrastinating like a politician when asked "Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?" told me more about his views than any straight answer he could have given. For anyone who's interested apparantly being gay is not a sin... practicing gay acts is. Utter drivel."

This is hardly utter drivel. The good bishop recognizes that acting completely backwards in this world is common, and each of us struggle in this regard. In short, harboring homosexual desire is one thing, but acting upon it is quite another. The former is the bane of all our experiences (in that we all fall far short of what is best); the latter is a direct contradiction of the very telos evident in human sexual relationships.

There is one group of people missing from this whole debate: the children who might be adopted. The new legislation attempts to force through a certain understanding of human sexuality which sees no problem whatever with homosexuality. It is simply another life-style which should be treated as equal to heterosexuality. This legislation uses a sledgehammer approach to crack a nutshell. First, the percentage of homosexuals is tiny (about 2% of the male population and even less of females) and the percentage of homosexuals wishing to adopt is equally miniscule (about 3% of all homosexuals).

The homosexual rights movement, part of a much broader movement of sexual 'liberation', is primarily concerned with obtaining this position of equality in contemporary society. But they seem less concerned with the effects of children, especially adopted children, being brought up in homosexual households. Almost all the reliable social science evidence suggests that the optimal conditions for bringing up children are normally contained in a household consisting of a married, heterosexual and loving couple. By definition, these conditions are not met in a homosexual household. Furthermore, already vulnerable adoptee children would be exposed to even greater difficulty when they attend schools and were discovered to have two 'mothers' or two 'fathers'.

The Catholic Church is absolutely right to resist this discriminatory legislation.

Do the Catholic adoption agencies also refuse to deal with people who eat shell fish (Leviticus c11 v10) ?

Patricia Wickham (106) wrote:
Even if you do not believe in God, common sense should tell us that a child should be raised in a family environment with a mother and a father. This is the natural order of things.

Of course it's desirable to be raised in a stable environment. But that stability does not necessarily from the "traditional" nuclear family...

So what about children who are unfortunate enough to lose one of their parents, through death or divorce? Do you think this is "unnatural"? What about all those "natural" families in which abuse occurs? Can I ask, what would you rather, a stable environment with a gay couple, or an unstable abusive home with mother and father present?

Luke (94) wrote:
And a note for Simon McMahon (#7): you've made clear your ignorance in your post, as the Bible can be proved to be the word of God in so many different ways. And by proved, I mean unequivocally, not just some flimsy argument open to all sorts of debate.

Well! I stand corrected! I'd love to see the EVIDENCE of this alleged "proof"... as would, I imagine, everyone else here. Because as far as I'm aware the Bible has NEVER been proven to be the word of anyone other than humans. In fact we don't even have much clue as to who the authors were in many cases. And as for the mechanisms in place to choose which books of the Bible are canonical... well they are most definitely man made. As are the numerous differences between the various versions of the Bible.

Let me ask, how many Christians have access and the ability to understand the earliest existing texts in their ORIGINAL language?

And claiming the Bible is above the law is ridiculous. Does this mean it's okay to stone someone to death for working on the sabbath?

An afterthought following my posting above (86) - I applied to my local authority to adopt nearly three years ago. They huffed and puffed and in the end blew my house down, turning me down after TWO AND A HALF YEARS of waiting - and in the minutes I see that the panel chair made a discriminatory remark against me because I am a practising Christian. She thought that I wanted to "save a child" - as in, from hell. I was questioned on whether I would impose my beliefs on a child, and assured the adoption panel that I would not. It appears that the panel chair thought my word could not be trusted.
These are the same people who are squealing for equality for homosexual couples. The same people who refuse to place dual-heritage children with white adopters. It would be so nice if THEY practiced what THEY preached instead of abusing real equality in favour of discrimination disguised as liberal values.

As a follow up, I鈥檇 like to add my support to Jason (#34).

Like yourself, I was placed for adoption at only a few weeks old, and dealing with this emotional wrench and the added difficulties of being raised by another family aren鈥檛 very nice. The difficulties this causes are well documented and not something people who are raised by their own parents properly appreciate.

I share your point of view that being placed with a homosexual couple isn鈥檛 something I would choose if given the choice, but we鈥檙e not given a choice. Any policy maker, institution, or vested interest must get rid of the agenda鈥檚 that crowd their own minds and consider that reality is where it鈥檚 at. Anything else is ego.

I despise and pity poor and misinformed judgement. I don鈥檛 care whether it鈥檚 reflected in a policy, institution, or individual. The problem is, people can鈥檛 stop meddling, or trying to form the world in their image, or taking out some spite. If you鈥檝e got problems, deal with it, don鈥檛 push it onto children who can鈥檛 defend themselves.

I applaud Patricia Wickham's common sense (entry 106).

These adoption agencies receive state funding. They should therefore treat everyone as equals, whatever their sexual orientation or colour or religion/lack thereof. The 'conscience clause' idea is a cowardly cop-out, just as it is with medical staff over abortion, contraception, & c., having precedence over patients' rights to entirely legal treatment.

As to the suitability of gay men and women as adoptive parents: well, quite a lot of them have children of their own, and manage much like straight parents. Would these various clerics advocate taking their own children from them?

This government has given far too much leeway to religious interests in public life. We need a secular state.

This is not about whether Christians or gays have the more important rights. The church is NOT imposing its will on anyone, or it's beliefs or anything. It is simply advising that it may for reasons of conscience withdraw its services, as evryone else is also entitled to do. For example when there is a gay adoption agency will they avoid sending children to Catholic couples?

It is our country's new found obsession with tolerance and equality that is nonsense rather than the word of God. These new laws aim to acheive equality between homosexuals and and heterosexuals by creating inequality between those who believe it is right to practice homosexual relationships, and those who do not. We tolerate everything in our wonderful developed society, except intolerence. Which, of course, makes us intolerant of anyone who expresses pretty much any moral absolutes. It cannot work, and in time will create more hostility and division than it can ever hope to avoid. Those who do not believe in the moral laws laid down in scripture cannot be expected to abide by them - however, the church's complaint is about the government's insistence that it actively helps to place children in a situation it believes is morally wrong. It is totally wrong to expect the church to disregard its beliefs because atheists have changed the law.

Since when has British law been subject to church approval??? We are supposedly living in a 21st century democracy, not the middle ages. It appears that the Catholic and Anglican churches would rather we had something on a par with the Iranian system, where legislation needs to be cleared through a religious council which has more power than the state!!! The idea that anyone can hide behind a religion in order to discriminate and for this to be sanctioned by law is ridiculous.

Phil Hopkins wrote: "In practical terms I cannot see that discrimination (if thats what it really is) by the Catholic Church against adoption by gay couples is causing any harm whatsoever. This stance does not in any way disadvantage gay couples as there are plenty of alternative routes to adoption available."

By which logic, the racist could forbid blacks from walking down his street on the grounds there were plenty of alternative routes available... Quite.

If God really does exist, and if the Bible really is His Word, then the fact that people are using it to justify discrimination and bigotry can only show that they don't understand it properly yet.

Firstly, I wish that people would stop assuming that the views of the majority are concurrent with the views of liberal atheists? It is an unsound assumption from the start.

Secondly, to those who would attack religious beliefs as intolerant, speak for yourselves. The classic criticism of liberalism should be borne in mind if one is not to make a mockery of what could be a valid position, i.e. we should not be agreeing with the idea that liberalism means you can have any belief you like, so long as it's liberal. Religious people are entitled to their views.

Thirdly, realise that this is not an issue about adoption. That has already been solved. The Church refers willingly and with assistance to groups who are far better equipped to place children with gay parents. Wishing that the Church would themselves place children in contravention of their beliefs is pointless and essentially reflects a wish that the guidances of Christianity were malleable to the modern state. They aren't. Moreover, it aren't going to be.

To return to the point, children who are considered suitable for adoption by gay parents are already transferred to an agency that will arrange this by the Church. For the child, there is therefore no issue. That should be the end of it. The rights of the gay parents to adopt children are not of the Church's concern - the children are.

The contention is that any gay parent could prospectively be considered an appropriate parent to an adoptive child. This requires serious consideration. My initial thoughts are that with babies, gay parents are equally great, however, children who have already been socially conditioned to live in a heterosexual family arrangement would probably find gay parents challenging. I remain to be contested on this last point.

Apologies for the length of this post. For the record, I am a liberal, atheist, Guardian-reading type (frankly ashamed of the "tolerant" anti-religious sentiments I've read of this thread).

The Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales is seeking exemption from anti-discrimination legislation for its adoption agencies, on the grounds that for homosexual couples to adopt children would be against the teachings of the church. Rowan Williams has now waded into the debate saying that RC adoption agencies should be allowed to discriminate on grounds of conscience. Perhaps I have missed out on something here 鈥� but I had imagined that if an organisation or a person working for an organisation was providing services for the whole community, and receiving much if not all its funding from the taxes paid by wider society that exemption from certain pieces of legislation was something an organisation didn鈥檛 have any right to ask for.

A few weeks ago there were protests in Parliament Square by religious groups protesting about anti-gay rights legislation. Homosexuality is contrary to the teachings of conservative Christianity, Islam and Judaism was the gist of the argument and members of faith groups shouldn鈥檛 be prosecuted for not providing goods and services to homosexuals. This is all rather laughable really and shows the peculiar, bigoted and (let鈥檚 face it) self-righteous attitudes of many of our 鈥榝aith-brethren鈥�! Islam states that the consumption of alcohol and gambling are forbidden by the Qur鈥檃n but many of our Muslim owed corner shops are happy to sell alcohol and lottery tickets to their customers. Do we see protests in Westminster condemning the moral dilemma many a Muslim shopkeeper is 鈥榝orced鈥� into every day by having to provide goods and services the Qur鈥檃n condemns? Of course not; there is no moral dilemma when profits are being made, it seems鈥� There are similar examples of Jewish or Christian businesses happy to overlook the teachings of their faith when there is money to be made. It is certain that neither Muslim nor Jew nor Christian businesses ask morally probing questions about their customers: so why is one group of people being singled out? It is 鈥榚asy morality鈥�, nothing more, nothing less.

It鈥檚 one of the lesser agreeable aspects of religious faith that it is often a means of making oneself feel better about oneself 鈥� forgiven, saved, part of a select, chosen few鈥� The homosexual fulfils the useful role, for many people of faith, as exemplifying an 鈥榠mmorality鈥� that they can deride and distance themselves from and in doing so not have to think about their own living out of their faith. They are able to condemn without cost to themselves.

To be quite honest I have nothing again RC adoption agencies deciding by their own criteria who shall have the fruit of (in the main) the failure of heterosexuality. But I do not think, if such is the case, that RC or any other religiously motivated social work agency should have one penny of tax-payers鈥� money towards the provision of their services. Nor should the workers of these agencies be able to continue their registration with professional organisations. Registered social workers have an ethical, egalitarian code by which they are bound, working for a prescriptive religious organisation must and does clash with this code. Therefore they shouldn鈥檛 be registered. If they鈥檙e not registered they cannot practice and therefore cannot enact the adoption legislation, since it can only be carried out by a registered social worker鈥� Emm 鈥� food for thought.

The Churches that are against homosexuality are using a translation of a translation taken out of context. This is so far from what was originally intended as to be indefensible. I notice that the most bigotted 'Christians' always quote the letters of St Paul or the Old Testament to justify their bigotry. They never quote Jesus because what he had to say is too radical for them.

Of course no-one should be allowed to perpetuate bigotry, whatever their excuse!

I think people are missing the point. Its not about sex and sin so much as whether gay parents actually make GOOD parents. There are plenty of studies out there to suggest they don't, simply due to the mother and father figures we NEED and were supposed have. Yet people ignore the child psychologists who conduct this research simply because of their own greed to have a kid as a fashion accessory. Me me me.

What equality? This law is to appease gay rights activists and hand them another weapon with which to hold society to ransom for any goodies available when a slight is perceived.

Catholics and Christians have seen a conflict and are making a stand. Haven`t heard from the Muslims yet but I expect they`ll find a way to complain as well. Then someone has to decide which diversity to embrace. The stupid appeasers are legislating a faction fight. Funny how nobody saw it coming. Oh wait. I think they did but were shouted down as racist, facist, homophobic, etc.

One more rant. It started as a joke but I`m beginning to believe it. Recent studies indicate that marijuana has long term psychological effects. How many liberals are currently influencing policy based on being stoned some time back in the sixties? Have they come down yet?

People who bang on about how a child should only be brought up by a man and woman really need to enter the real world.

It's these supposed 'perfect' male and female relationships that have produced the situation that a poor child needs adopting in the first place.

The CHILD comes first, not religion.

Religion has NO place in politics.

Hilary said "Adoption is supposed to be for the benefit of the children. Has anyone stopped to wonder what effect having gay parents could have on them? The possible bullying, ostracising, even attacking, just because they are 'different'?"

Hm. Non-whites experience lots of discrimination too, so perhaps you should bar them from adopting? Oh, and we should probably ban mixed-race couples from having children too, for the same reason? No?

You're right, those children will suffer bigotry, just as mixed race children do sometimes today. But it's the bigotry that's wrong, not the parents of the children. And pandering to bigotry will only help it to flourish.

I admire any Catholics who carry out voluntary work in adoption agencies, and I'm sure none or very few of them chose that line of work in order to pursue a homophobic agenda.

To those who are against gay adoptors, this might be a good time to reevaluate that stance. The Bible says a great many things, and what it says about homosexuality is far from clear. The fact that the Catholic Church maintains an anti-gay position probably reflects how uncomfortable Church members feel about the practice more than the foundation in Scripture. And I'm sure many Catholics would be embarrassed at the ignorance of the homophobic remarks on this thread.

A more practical question is whether adoption by a gay couple is bad for children. I'm not aware of any evidence that it is. At a guess I'd say that gay couples are on average wealthier and better-educated than straight ones, for various reasons, and these are things that will make a difference to a child's future.

As for homosexuality being unnatural, it's survived in our genes for a long time (unless you're a creationist) and has been found in thousands of other species. Besides, many aspects of our lives are unnatural these days, and just as well.

I find it hard to see how the government could make an exception without completely undermining the legislation (though this government is certainly craven enough to try). Many people have 'consciences' about beliefs that others find unacceptable - honour killings, female castration are extreme examples.

I hope that the legislation is passed as is, that gay couples who wish to adopt will avoid Catholic agencies rather than trying to force a test case, and that Catholics in those agencies will continue as before, in the knowledge that the good work they are doing is more important than their prejudices.

Reading the comments posted here it strikes me that there are many people who would probably consider themselves liberal and tolerant who can simply not tolerate the fact that the Catholic Church, like any other institution, organisation, etc has a right to contribute towards the legislative process. In a decent and tolerant society the Church or any other organisation for that matter, has a right to put its view forward where they can be challenged and subject to debate. There is sadly, a tendency for some 麓liberals麓 to respond with insults and abuse whenever the Catholic Church puts its views forward.

On the point in question the Catholic Church believes, as I do, that a child who is to be adopted should be adopted by a mother and a father, who can provide a loving, stable, environment. Obvioulsy a gay couple cannot provide that, nor can a couple without a degree of financial stability, nor a couple with a record of serious criminal offences, etc. In the case of a loving gay couple, they can however, choose another agency that is willing to place children with them. The fundamental issue for me though is why does does the State have to overeach itself in this way which such draconian legislation? The State should adopt a polcy of minimal interference in the life of its citizens. Are there any gay couples out there who haven麓t been able to adopt because of the refusal of a Catholic adoption agency? No? then why the legislation? Legislate where there are specific instances requiring a legal response, let麓s not legislate because of a misguided view that its going to make the world a better place!

I always find it strange that people pick and choose practices from the Bible which they consider to be immoral.

There's the bit about "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination", although strictly speaking this is punishable by death and not just condemnation by churches. But equally adultery in the same bit of Leviticus is also punishable by death, having sex with a menstruating woman is punishable by being cast out from their people. There's also various issues around people who are disabled accessing the bread of God, wearing clothing of mixed fibres (so poly-cotton shirts are a big no-no) and eating shellfish is also frowned upon.

Interesting you never here people going on about these issues.

In response to Hilary's comment about the effect that having gay parents might have on the adopted child.... when I was at school, children were bullied for all manner of reasons, such as being of mixed race or for being from a low-income family. By extension of those views, perhaps poor people and mixed-race couples should not be allowed to have children either through adoption or childbirth...
This just goes to show that as long as there are people who think that being gay is somehow wrong, there will be a need for legislation to combat it.

Why should some people who claim they have a special relationship with one particular version of an all powerful Sky Fairy be allowed to act differently?

The real issue isn't about adoption or children or Christianity or gay rights, it's about reason versus faith and whether someone who rejects the supernatural should have more legal restrictions placed upon them than someone who embraces one form of divine wizardry or another.

In this case the real discrimination is against those who choose to stand tall in the face of well organised popular flim-flam. They will be discriminated against as they will have less rights than those who accept the paranormal.

Let all Christians unite to oppose this unjust attack against the Church. Christians have a duty to disobey unjust laws and a government which rules without justice should be swept from power by the people.

As already stated, the Bible is very clear on its teaching about homosexuality. In and of itself it is not sinful to be homosexual. However, to act sexually on it is specifically condemned. To live in a partnership is therefore rebellion against God. The Bible is also clear that the best way to bring up a cild is in monogamous marriage between a man and a woman. It is not always possible to do so (i.e. in the case of a divorced couple), but where breaking this rule can be resisted it should be.
As a result, if God forbids such activity, His followers should follow His teaching.
I am not a Roman Catholic but I recognise the stand it is taking to be completely Biblical and therefore support it wholeheartedly

Nick

You say that there are 'relatively few gay adopters. Is it not the case, in Scotland definitely, not sure about the rest of UK, but think it is the same, that homosexual couples have only been allowed to adopt since 2004. Is it not therefore surprising that there are relatively few, at the moment anyway.

Many seem to believe that allowing people to enjoy the same rights as they do means giving them a whip hand over them; gays who want to adopt are not getting more rights. Legally those with certain religious beliefs will not be able to discriminate on the grounds of someone鈥檚 sexuality when considering potential adopters, how is this giving homosexual couples greater rights than straight couples.

In fact what a large group of religious people really believe is that gay people are not of equal worth, that they do not have the capacity to love, and could not possibly offer a stable home to a child; homosexuals are, they believe objectively disordered. Actually the right to believe these things is not being proscribed, but the right to actively distort public policy because of these beliefs is.

So again we have the issue of the zealots wanting legal immunity because their Gods Law trumps mans; if this is the case we should dissolve all man made law immediately and allow each religion to follow its Gods Law as dictated by their respective holy books, 鈥減rophetic鈥� ravings, revelations, and assorted pap. That of course would herald real intolerance, inequality, and misery as each group of scared little god bothers attempted to enforce their respective deities commandments. The wicked old liberal democratic state would appear rather tame in comparison.

Just becuase I beleive something doesn't make it true.

Most of the christians out there should read the bible and decide if they can live by the rules of the old testiment. Belief is good but the convenient belief of the modern church is hypocritical.

What is true is that sexuality does not dictate a persons fitness to raise children.

What is also true is that the catholic church worldwide is being sued for billions due to the sexual abuse of children in its schools and homes.

Where would you prefer a child to be raised? A government monitored family environment or an estabilished church with a known record of child abuse.

The catholic church advocates celebacy for its leaders.

A large portion of the gay and lesbians in the UK have raised children, few of the priests bishops and the like of the catholic church have.

What is more important in deciding a course of action. Belief or experience?

As for the church of england, this need to be approved of by the pope is quite unpleasant.

THe closing of church run adoption agencies and schools should have happened long ago. THe forced brain washing of the young is obscene. All our children should be raised with open minds and allowed to choose their beleif when they have all the information to hand.

So much for equality espoused by many here. It seems more like an opportunity for anti-Catholic bigots to take cheap shots at the Church.
Pathetic!

As an Anglican with a high regard for both Rowan Williams and John Sentamu I am deeply ashamed and disappointed by today's announcements.

Firstly, I believe that upholding prejudice on the grounds of 'natural law' is both proposterous and unChristian. It is clear to me that Jesus challenged discrimination in all the guises that it manifest itself in first century Palestine. I would hope that the Church would be commited to continuing this ethos in the light of new circumstances.

Secondly, it is also far from clear whether so called anti-homosexuality passages in the Bible are againt all homosexual practice. By saying that the Church is not prejudiced against homosexual preference, only against people acting upon their preferences, they are denying people the opportunity to share in a unitive relationship. We now live in a society where gay men and women make monogomous life commitments to oneanother. I believe that they are just as capable of providing a loving and stable environment as a heterosexual couple.

By denying children the opportunity to be adopted by homosexual parents Catholic adoption agencies are denying many a family life. So many children are never adopted and if this law gives just a hand full of children the chance of a happy and loving home then it is a good thing.

I am not 'anti- gay' but at the end of the day children can only be begotten by the seed of the male being implanted into the egg of a female. Ergo, no homosexual couple has a 'right' to have children. By recognising their homosexuality, they have abrogated that possibility. Moreover, I do not believe that every heterosexual couple has a 'right' to have children. If it is not possible for them to conceive naturally, I do not believe that IVF should be provided automatically. I am a devout and committed atheist and I speak as the mother of two children both of whom have had problems with conception, either faults of their own or of their spouses. Let us for goodness sake get this into proportion.

Just a challenge to a few points raised here:

(89) Surely most prospective adoptive parents are unable to have children. If we accepted 'nature' as this poster does, perhaps no-one would be wearing glasses, or construct houses. The point is, not only is this incorrect - adoption, homosexuality and shelter seeking/building are traits present in other animals (nature), but we have ability to choose our own fates, to some extent. Here, by nature, she could substitute: Fate, my god, etc. Also similarly by 'unnatural', she means 'against my beliefs; my religion's beliefs; or those of my god'. Nature is seldom, if ever, an argument for or against any human behaviour. It can at best provide existing examples.

(34, 71, 76)
Firstly children that young don't have a choice, just like they don't have a choice as to what religion their new parents are. The choice is made by the government, on behalf of the future citizen.

Secondly the choices presented here are retrospective - the views presented by those who have been brought up by gay parents should perhaps be given more relevance, as opposed to views instilled by, possibly, extremely religious parents. Of course, what parents tell and teach their children should be closely looked at, regardless of sexuality, religion, or race, and whether the child is adopted or conceived.

Finally, a woman who gives up a child for adoption is, in my opinion, giving up the right to raise that child and make important decisions in it's life. Support for young and/or single mothers is now afforded by most of society, against most traditional religious views. The mother has, except in extreme circumstances, the choice whether to put up a child for adoption, but thereupon ends her 'parental rights'. Although I can not rightly say if a woman can 'give' her child to a homosexual couple, if she can, she can surely give it to a Catholic couple too?

(111) Children are bullied for many reasons, and many can be because of parents: the parents are perhaps of a different religion, dress them in different clothes, or perhaps are homosexual. You can not determine whether a child will be bullied because of prospective parents - surely the solution is to try to stop bullying? In my opinion keeping the legislation as it stands, without internal contradiction, would help, by trickle down effect help alleviate some homophobic bullying which can be experienced by all: even if they or their parents are not gay.

States: "Brighton and Hove City Council also actively recruits lesbian, gay and bisexual foster and adoptive carers, including by advertising in the local gay press and having a stall at the local Pride event. ... Now, some 50% of people being approved as adoptive parents in Brighton and Hove are from the lesbian, gay and bisexual community."

Surely an adopted child facing the disadvantages and risks associated with being abandoned willingly or unwillingly by its mother has the right to expect society to provide the best possible substitute parents.

In addition to the stigma of being adopted, in Brighton and Hove 50% of such children face the additional stigma of homosexual or lesbian 'parents.'

What kind of caring society places the 'equal rights' of adult homosexuals and lesbians over the rights and requirements of very vulnerable children?

On this issue the Government has utterly lost touch with morality.

Why is it right that a catholic adoption agency cannot refuse a couple because they are gay, but can refuse a couple because they are Christian.
Why is it right that a B&B cannot refuse a couple a bed for the night because they are gay, but can refuse a couple because they are Muslim.
Why is it right that a barman cannot refuse to serve a couple because they are gay, but can refuse to serve a couple because they are straight, or should I say non-gay.
Why is it right that a gay couple living together have rights above and beyond a boy and girl living together.
Why are gays so special that they have thier own rights and protected under the law. Is it because 'Gay Rights' is now an industry giving work to highly paid campaigners and lawyers.

I find this curious idea of "loving the lesbian or gay person but hating the practice" concept quite, quite bizarre. It seems to suggest that one can be gay, and providing one does not take part in any sexual act, that is acceptable.

Being gay is not a choice people make. To have to deal with bigotry and prejudice routinely on a day to day basis is not a choice that many rational people would make. Indeed, the pressures are resolutely in the other direction - to deny the reality and attempt to conform to a stereotype - which creates unhealthy pressures for many young people. I am glad that there has been considerable progress during my lifetime in making it easier for people to express their homosexuality more openly.

I am delighted by this legislation. I will be extremely disappointed if Mr Blair decides to be cowed by the pressures from the churches. I am perfectly happy for Roman Catholics to adopt children. However, if they have conscience issues about this legislation, I am also extremely happy for them to close down their services. I cannot believe it beyond the wit of other parts of our society to fill that apparent gap.

What a lot of fuss about a very simple issue! What passes for democratic process in this country has led to a law being passed that says if you want to do X then you must do Y.

Consider 2 examples:

1. X = run a pub and Y = not allow people to smoke inside your premises.

2. X = run an adoption agency and Y = not descriminate against people wishing to adopt because of their sexuality

Now, I may have an honest and deeply held belief (and beliefs have nothing to do with logic) that people should be allowed to smoke a cigar, or whatever, with their drink but the law will shortly say I can't. So I must either comply or give up running a pub.

What's the difference? If the adoption agencies in question don't feel they can comply with the law then they must cease operating.

In either case it may may be unfortunate for all concerned, but the law can only be the law - for all.

Mind you the issue would have been easier and the law held in greater esteem if, all those years ago, well-meaning politicians had said to observant sihks, "Sorry. but don't ride motor bikes if you can't comply with the law on crash helmets"

Tinkerty-tonk

If you beleive in religon then you must belive that God should not have made people gay in the first place if he thought that it [homosexuality] was wrong.

If you believe that being gay is a choice then you are admitting that the only reason that you are not gay is because you are resisting temptation although you do have homosexual desires.

You decide, which one is it?

Religion has nothing to do with it. The principle at issue is free trade.

You are allowed to put on your Hotel adverts "No smokers." You can say in your business "No pets", "No children", "Members only". You can refuse admission to your night club for those wearing jeans and trainers, or men wearing shorts and no shirts, or men not wearing a suit and tie. And you can be barred from a pub for any reason whatsoever.

There is an ancient principle that on your own private property you can allow or decline admission to anyone as you choose. Even the police require a court-issued warrant to enter without your permission. The principle says that a contract is a voluntary agreement between two people, and neither needs to give a reason not to trade.

For this bill to be consistent, it is not only the case that shops must serve all customers irrespective, but customers must buy at all shops irrespective, and if you fail to shop at a certain store without good reason, and the owner happens to be gay, well, that's homophobia. Have you bought your quota of goods and services from gay proprietors? Because we do not tolerate intolerance anywhere.

It is a nonsense dreamt up by self-serving special interest pressure groups, and passed by what used to be known as the "Loony Left" out of trendy political correctness. Intolerance of gays is no better nor worse than intolerance of smokers. It is a crying shame that the only public figures left who can dare to stand up against it are the religious. Is this really the best argument for freedom we can muster?

Why are people saying that religious people will be forced to act against their consciences?

Surely the choice if the legislation is passed is to carry on supplying the services legally or stop supplying the services as a personal matter of conscience?

Religious people won't be forced to supply the services so it's not a matter of conscience.

The underlying assumption of many in this debate, which no-one in the mainstream media seems willing to question, is that, like race or gender, homosexuality is a natural and fixed part of our make-up. There is scant scientific evidence to support this, but some evidence pointing in the direction of other factors (e.g. the psychological effects of a poor relationship during adolescence with our same-sex parent). Sadly however, political correctness means it is virtually impossible to obtain funding for research in these areas. Prejudice is defined as 'a biased opinion, based on insufficient knowledge'. My question therefore is 'Who's guilty of it - the church, or the pro-gay lobby and media?

Much of the debate on the adoption issue by same sex couples seems to assume that everyone has the right to a child. As a Christian I believe children are not possessions or commodities but a precious gift of God. Nature dictates they are only conceived by a heterosexual relationship not the law. Why then is it considered offensive for the Catholic adoption agencies to support what nature has planned for us.

The request for an exemption is not blackmail but rather a responsible approach to a difficult issue, pointing out to Government the implications of proceeding without consulation with all the concerned parties on this issue. If the Catholic Church were forced in conscience to withdraw from the provision of this vital service many many children could suffer. We are aware that approximately a third of all 'difficult' to place adoptions are dealt with through such agencies. What will happen to these vulnerable children who desperately need help and support without them?

The law allows exemptions in the case of same sex marriages, re-directing same sex couples who wish to form a legally recognised union to the option of a Civil Partnership. Why not then allow the Catholic Church and other such agencies the exemption to re-direct same sex couples to local authority agencies? The Church is not proposing a total ban on adoption by same sex couples but in conscience it is advising the Government of its own inability to actively promote it.

I find the trite arrogance of those who mock people because of their beliefs, absurd. "Imaginary friend," " the age of reason," "logic not faith." "The rule of man's law."
Logic said the earth was flat.
Reason was used to suport slavery, and child workers.
Man's law made it possible to murder 6 million Jews.
Do these people know nothing of history? We have holidays, because the church celbrated holy days, and people were given rest.
The very laws they want to use to overcome the rights of conscience, are based on the ten commandments.
Without The supreme authority of God, there is no just law.
The church has always stipulated that marriage, the union of man and woman, is the bedrock of family life; not living together, not making civil partnerships, whatever the sex.

The child must have the best hopes of a secure upbringing. If gay couples accept this, then THEY should press for this exception instead of clamouring for their own wants.

If Labour press this legislation through, they will lose the support of millions of Christians. As a catholic, and lifelong Labour voter, I will be forced to choose: it will not be Labour.

But let's demand the other parties make their stance known. No hiding places, for Cameron or Cambell.

everyone here is forgetting the ONE important thing in this whole issue - the child. whether you like it or not the catholic agencies WILL close down if the legislation is passed - that serves NO-ONES interest.

also - the homosexual couples DO have a choice to adopt from other agencies, and the catholic adoption agencies DO refer them.

comparing the catholic church's views on homosexuality to racism is absurd. there is no 'moral'issue in 'being' black, white, etc. performing a homosexual act is an ACTION - a choice is being made. whether you agree with it or not, people are talking absoloute nonsense when they blabber on with this rubbish about racism etc.

think of the children - their rights to have BOTH a father and a mother FAR outweigh the rights for gay parents to have a child! the interests of the children are getting forgotton in this whole debate.

It will also affect schools, who may be forced to promote homosexual
relationships as being equal to heterosexual unions.

Why is informing people that it's acceptable to have a gay relationship
and there's nothing wrong with it seen as promotion?. It is simply informing them of the 'options'. I don't think anyone is asking teachers to present it 'propaganda' style! They are simply being informed. In the same way that modern RE lessons focus more on informing students of different religions so they are aware of them all. They are free to choose to follow one, or none of them. The same is said following the abolition of Section 28.

Whole other can of worms, but I just wanted to add that.

When I was too young to understand what it meant, the majority in society imposed their beliefs on a minority of the people, and homosexual activity was illegal, with penalties if convicted. The social consequences of exposure were, if anything, worse. It came to be seen as wrong that the law should be used to regulate private belief and private behaviour; that the desires of the minority were not a matter for the law makers and enforcers. The laws were repealed, and tolerance was hoped for. This was seemed like a good thing to me.

When I was at school, stories of 'queer-bashing' were told, and revolted me. But the law stood against attacks, as it should, and the criminals were sought and prosecuted. This was, in my view, how the law should be - impartial and on the side of all.

It was unthinkable until quite recently that homosexuals should marry - marriage meant a man and a woman, it was a conflict of concepts. But in all but name we have gay marriage permitted in law. This is a good thing. Formal social recognition of an intended permanent relationship is now allowed equally for any couple, but not imposed on any couple.

And now adoption by homosexual partners is permitted in law - not forced on any couple, which would be absurd and intolerant and wrong. What an advance in one life-time! An astonishing rate of social change, maybe unprecedented in human history, for all I know.

But have we actually moved on so much? Because it is looking to me as though we are back in some ways where we came from, with the law being used to impose the beliefs and desires of the majority on all, with no recognition of the complexity of human society that gives it richness, with no desire to tolerate those whose ideas don't match those ofthe group currently able to use the law for the achievement of its own ideals - and is that really what the law is for, to change people's ideas and beliefs? Or just to protect us from those who would abuse us. The freedoms have been given - rightly. Why isn't that enough? There are plenty of people, the majority, willing to help the freedoms be achieved, just a few who would suffer violence to their beliefs if compelled to take part in the new freedom.

Why does everyone have to be forced to believe in them, on pain of penalty? Is the law more respected or less, when it over-rides people's deep beliefs and desires? Are minority beliefs really the proper business of the law makers and enforcers? Are those shouting 'hypocrisy' really so lacking in complexity that they can be certain of total rational consistency in every part of their behavour, statements and values? even if they can, why does that make it right for their views to be imposed on the remainder?

What happened to the hopes of tolerance that were so high when I was young? So much change so quickly, and no subject has everybody in agreement. On matters as personal and as human as this, why expect it, and why demand it?

We used to

Who cares ? Its all over because Bliar has given in according to Channel Four.

Yet another sign that Nobody listens to him any more and Blair is finished but he still wont go because he wants to serve 10 years as P.M.!!

Pure actor!! Pure ego!!

As I see it, it is an open and shut case - there is, or ideally should be, a seperation of Church and Government. It is the government and the popular vote it is elected by which is the final arbiter of law, not any of the variety of under-attended religious sects in Britain.

If Blair yields to the church's, he may as well introduce Sharia law exempt from common law for Muslims, and allow a sort of cultural federalisation of the country. That, as I'm sure you will agree, would be an absurd situation.

Let's not give the Churches any preferencial treatment simply because they're *christian*.

In all of this debate the voice of the child has been lost. There is a national shortage of foster and adoptive parents for children who cannot live with their birth families or relatives. Such children need foster/adoptive parents who can meet their individual and often very special needs. How can the Catholic Church threaten to close all their adoption agencies over this? Does this mean that their disapproval of same sex relationships is far more important than the work their adoption agencies have and could continue to do?

I would also suggest that any same sex couple who have the commitment and skills needed to foster or adopt children and can provide a child or sibling group with a loving, safe and nuturing home into adulthood should apply to the many local authorities across the country who would be more than willing to assess their application

If the Catholic church wants to blackmail the government the correct response would be to threaten to revoke the churches charitable status.

Respect for each other patently does not mean we should be uniform.

Giving people access to services they need does not have to trample willfully across religious beliefs.

A clause that requires Catholic agencies, under a statutory duty, to refer gay couples to another agency would surely satisfy the practical need in this situation.

If we cannot manage this level of plurality then it is a sign that the new orthodoxy values unneccessary uniformity above all else.

If the Catholic church is saying that homosexual couples should not be allowed to be parents, are they in turn saying that all the lesbian couples that have had children 'naturally' should have those children taken off them and put into care, which would result in thousands of more children in care looking for good homes.

Surely they must realise that this is reality and not a 'fictional' book.

Since when has conscience allowed an exemption from the law? What about all those people who wanted to be exempt from the proportion of their tax bill that went to pay for nuclear weapons? And now, I am opposed to the war in Iraq, so can I claim back some of my taxes on that basis?

Even in the war, conscientious objectors ended up doing something towards the war effort, even if it was bomb disposal or medical orderly. Very few managed to avoid involvement.

Cast in tablets of stone,from the reformation to the restoration,never before in the history of mankind has the union of man and wife been so undermined.Let the Church restore values and order in this depleted society.

To quote one post: "It is one thing for society to ask groups to cease practices which are harmful or deeply offensive (e.g.: foxhunting, forced marriage), but quite another to attempt to force someone to act against their own deeply held beliefs."

Talk about missing the point. Bigotry and Prejudice, whether personal or institutional, is both harmful and offensive. That is precisely why society is now passing a law to consign it to history.

Perhaps it would be a good time to point out that it's not only Catholics and Anglicans who object to this legislation but Free Church members as well. It would also be a good time to point out that together we have a substantial joint vote (somewhere in the region of 2.5 million)

Think about it Tony-and Gordon...

I just wish someone would put the RIGHTS of the CHILD FIRST. Why can no MP do the right thing for THE CHILD before re-making any law that has to either score political points, be there for "political Correctness" or follow the European Convention on Human Rights that are not RIGHT for everyone.
Think of the child, that is all any of you have to do, just think of the child and the trauma it has already gone through in its short life.

Ruth Kelly should not be involved, since she has a clear interest in the Church.

The Church should stay out. I cannot recall them ever being elected. They want to make policy, then stand for Parliament.

There are numerous children who need homes. While I have no problems with gay couples adopting, you have to realistically look at child's peers at school. The Government wants to be trendy, the Church fundamentalist.

Who speaks for the children?

Just to weigh in on something that has been mentioned above--

Not all of those of us who are not Christian have no religion. I am Unitarian, and my religion would allow me to marry another woman blessed by a religious service in my own faith, yet under the laws of England I can't do that. I'd have to have an entirely secular service as it is forbidden for me to have a same-sex religious ceremony. That is one thing I find extremely unfair. I don't especially want to get married at this juncture, partly because I'm only twenty, but if I did, I wouldn't have the option the way things stand. This country is still a fair distance from perfect equality.

Also, back to the original debate in the comments here, I am a lesbian who was raised by married heterosexual parents. My younger sister is heterosexual. The sexuality of your parents, whether adoptive or biological, doesn't determine what yours will be. Orientation clearly can't be hereditary, though mine was already defined by the time I was nine years old, so I do believe I was born this way.

Homosexuality is a sin against the word of God. You cannot be a practicing Christian and a homosexual, the two states are mutually exclusive.

Surely the obvious thing would be to let each adoption agency discriminate as they choose.

Some will not choose older people, some not gay people, some not fat people.

Some, undoubtedly, would not let people with beards adopt.

When a parent gives up their child for adoption, surely it's up to them which agency's policies they consider will give the best chance for their kid.

Presumably people who deal with Catholic agencies do so because they expect Catholic polices.

Since the Catholic faith is governed by complex international structures, it is not up to any individual or group to change its beliefs.

Therefore the new legislation is in effect demanding that Catholic agencies stop operating as Catholic agencies.

Catholics are not asking that no gay couples may adopt, but simply to continue to operate as Catholic agencies and therefore be exempt from handling such cases.

It seem to me that the debate over issues relating to homosexuals, who arguably make up less than 5% of the population, is being used to divert attention to issues in the world that really are pressing problems.
With the issue relating to Adoption 鈥� shouldn鈥檛 the question be asked whether a church should be in the role of adoption at all? If the answer is that the church has a role to play then the government should allow the church to proceed according to its beliefs. However, if the state is the ultimate care provider, then thank the churches for their help and allow them to close their agencies and get the government to step up to the plate and take over. From my point of view, gradual erosion of the power of the church has become a raging torrent. Isn鈥檛 time for the church to get proactive instead of reactive and define itself in the modern world instead of statically sticking to stuffy old interpretations of how to be in the world. No-one is asking the church to change its doctine, simply acknowledge modern existance.

Let's get this right. The Catholic Church hitherto has been running its adoptive agencies in a discriminatory manner. They chose not to place children with gay couples because of their beliefs. Now a law threatens their discriminatory stance it pleads exemption on the grounds that to continue its discrimination would somehow continue to make it easier to place children in need with loving parents! Discrimination in any form is wrong. What this new law has done is shed light onto an ugly side of the Catholic Church. This is a secular country and long it remain so.

The education secretary has just confirmed there will be NO exemption for the catholic church.This is of course the right descision as it is untenable for any organisations to receive special treatment when framing legislation.We all must obey the laws of th e land regardless of our personal convictions or code of morality after all. The British Prime Ministers first priority must be to serve the British people,not special interest groups such as in this case the Catholic church..If he were to choose the latter he would have to resign as Prime Minister in my opinion.

What an astounding array of ignorant thickos come out of the woodwork whenever the Catholic Church is mentioned.

As Robert Whelan of Civitas notes in today's Daily Telegraph:
"The intolerance of those who shout most loudly about the need for toleration is a paradox too stale to be surprising, and the attacks on the Roman Catholic Church over its stance on the Sexual Orientation Regulations provide a particularly pungent example."

See the rest of this sensible article at

Anna Carr (No 5) writes that the Roman Catholic Church has nothing againgst gays as such, only gay relationships. Suppose I declared that I had nothing against black people as such, only mixed race marriages? Would I not be guilty of discrimination?

The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa was the defender of the Apartheid regime on theological grounds, perhaps something the Archbishop of York should reflect on? Can I take it that unreformed DRC parishes, on religious grounds, should be exempted from the Race Relations Act? Agencies and charities with a Muslim ethos obviously should be exempted from giving equal treatment to women on religious grounds. Johnson is quite right - you cannot have a law against discrimination and then permit it in the same Act.

I'm a gay adoptive dad.I'm also a practising Christian, trying to bring up my son (who is 10 and has lived with me for 3 years) with some sense of the love of God and what that might mean.

In no particular order a few points:

1. The overwhelming priory in adoption is and must be the welfare of the child. Most children (in this country)"available " for adoption are not babies in white woolies but older children - from 3 to 8 - traumatised by the things which have been done to them.The inclusion of different types of prospective adopters into the pool of possible parents is intimately connected with (a) the lack of potential adopters for older children (bluntly infertile couples in their late 30s really want the baby they can' have - not a hurt, damaged 7 year old) (b)often - not always - gay couples who have not had the disappointed expectations of natural parenthood of heterosexual couples can be more accepting, more open to the adoption of an older damaged child;

2. With older children, despite (because of?) the damage done in early childhood, there may yet be a strong attachment to one of the birth parents - usually birth mother.Often (not always) a same sex male couple may be an adoptive placement which allows periodic contact with the birth mother but without creating conflict and attachment traumas for the child: he has his daddies with whom he now lives (and who in practice of course give him both paternal and maternal day to day consistent love)but he also has birth mum - whom he still loves and whom he can see occasionally. It's not neat - but it reflects the complexity of the child's identity and, in that honesty, allows him to be grounded and to grow towards and indepenedent sense of self. In contrast, many (not all!) heterosexual couples find such "open" adoption too painful to contemplate and the complexity of the child's needs cannot be met. A significant number of happy successful adoptions with gay couples (that I know) are of damaged children previously placed (in one case twice) with married couples who couldn't cope with the reality and ended the adoption;

3. As a generalisation (dangerous!) gay and lesbian adopters have proved to be remarably generous (I have to use that word) to birth familes: contact arrangements are generally not ignored and the complexity of the child's background and attachments is respected;

4. The "rights" of gay adoptive couples are not rights to Have A Child Now - they're the right to be considered (that's all) as possibly the most suitable match for the welfare of this child who is damaged and has complex attachments.The important right is the right of a child to live in a home with the love, support and honesty about his life - past and present - which allows him to grow. For a particular child that may be with mum and dad; for another it may be with single mum or dad or daddy and daddy or mummy and mummy.This should not be a about "political correctness" but the real needs of a real child and how realistically they can find a home and a family.

5. In truth: no lovely hetero couple wanted to adopt my son (it was tried) - he was disturbed, he fought, he spat, he peed, he pooed, he was too old,he swore, he barely conversed, he broke things. After 3 years with his gay dad, he flourishes and has a confident sense of self and of his birth and adoptive signifcant others. He's a happy lad. Who is the archbishop who protected Michael Hill to deny him that?

We need to consider what is best for the children. Is society ready to accept the conept of gay parents? If not, who will suffer. Probably the child at school, in the playground, in his/her local sports team, being allowed to have friends play with him/her and sleep over. Clearly there is a considerable portion of society that is not willing to accept a family unit comprising same sex parents, made evident by the number of people protesting against the proposed law. Therefore it is important to prevent the children from being used as a pawn in a socio-political debate seeking to change societies attitude towards homosexuality. Until the government can guarantee that no child will be the victim of homophobic bullying it is irresponsible and selfish for anybidy to place a child in the care of a gay couple. We must not live in a fairytale land ruled by ideals and political correctness, we must be realistic. Homosexuality remains a taboo subject in many sections of society. A child is not a device to be used a weapon in the struggle to confront this taboo.

What will a child adopted by Gay couple call them. Will both be called Daddy or will one answer Mummy?

Am sure we cant force muslims to adopt children to Gay couple because it is against there religion.They ready to go wild,if such happens

David Meggitt wrote:

A useful test is to ask "What would be the evolutionary outcome if all adoptees were channelled to "gay" couples as opposed to heterosexual ones?

Not a useful test at all, Dai. More interesting would be "what if there were no adoptees apart from gay couples"? Would the church then keep the child without a family, or would they consider letting the couple adopt?

Simon Hickman wrote:

"approve appropriate鈥ingle people"

Don't rant about the above statement - If you think about it they are probably those who may have lost a husband or wife through death or other circumstance.

So? The argument is still that a child needs a mother and a father. And staying single is still a choice, yes?

So either the church are lying or they are hypocrites.

If an agency considers a couple or indeed a single person unsuitable to adopt a child then they could not morally place a child with those people.

They may think same sex couples are unsuitable for adoption of a child from a hetrosexual backround. They may think that it is un-natural; ie nature does not allow same sex couples to have their own children, the result would not even have the appearance of a natural family.

They may also think that it is very dangerous to experiment with the lives of children because of the "rights" of adults.

Am I right in my understanding being that PC pressure stops or restricts the placing of a black child with white parents? Is this discrimination and will this be outlawed under the new act?

Show me any modern, practising Christian that upholds biblical law in full themselves - especially all the weird and wonderful rules laid down by Leviticus (like not eating pork or shellfish, stoning to death anyone who works on the sabbath, not growing more than one kind of crop on your allotment, etc.) Nobody should be allowed to foist (or even try to foist) their views on others if they're not prepared to follow their own rules.

I don't care what it takes, the religious position must not be allowed to prevail. I'm happy to see any stigma used to beat a dogma.

Tory_And_Proud wrote:

HOW ADOPTION WORKS
==================
(for some)

A religious teen does not want to have an abortion but feels she's too young to be a mother. She wants the child to be bought up by a Catholic mum and dad.

Maybe she shouldn't have had a child until she was READY to be a mother, yes?

It is important to understand the distinction between discrimination against homosexuality on the one hand, and discrimination against race or gender on the other. These are often conflated in the current debate, condemning one by reference to the other.

Homosexual sex appears to many people to involve using the human body and its organs unnaturally, in a way contrary to their purpose. Racial and gender characteristics however appear wholly natural and organic. This would at least make it reasonable for someone of conscience to be against one and for the other.

Please, let's not confuse the issue by such spurious comparisons. Discrimination against homosexuals should not be condemned on these grounds - it is enough that no-one should be unreasonably discriminated against.

When the rights of two minorities clash there has to be some compromise, otherwise we will no longer have a plural society.

Granting the exemption the Catholic Church is looking for will not prevent gay couples adopting or prevent children from being placed for adoption. It will, however, allow Catholic adoption agencies to continue to operate conscientiously.

The Catholic Church is not saying it wants gay couples to be disbarred from adopting children. It simply wants Catholic agencies to continue to operate within the Church's teaching, which includes referring gay couples to other agencies that can help them.

Toleration means putting up with something you don't like. Some of the attitudes expressed on this site towards the Catholic Church suggest that toleration is in short supply.

I think that the contradictions of the material philosophy are starting to appear clearly. If the homosexuals successed to get their rights in the name of secularism,and human rights so why do we deprive other people of the right to live according to their religious convictions.
The absence of a reference has led to the deconstruction of man and no one knows where we are going to:
the social "entropy" is increasing!!!

What is really galling about this legislation is the way that the government seem to be taking the power to dictate how the church should run their affairs, it is much wider than just adoption, it involves employment law, rights of access to accommodation, and many other aspects of life.
In general terms I don't wish to dictate how non-christians should seek to live their lives but I do not see why they should automatically have the inalienable right to stay in my home(if it is a guest house) or to work in my church (if a church has employees) if their way of life or their belief system militates against
the belief system I hold dear.

My partner and I have been together 20 years (and were finally able to get married this summer, hooray). We have brought up three gorgeous, happy and well-adjusted children in a loving lesbian family. As far at they are concerned, and their friends and schools and so on, this is perfectly ordinary. There are lots of families like ours, and for that matter, there always have been, it's just easier to be 'out' nowadays thanks to the courage of so many people who have had to deal with bigotry in the past. The fact that some religions are still anti-gay is offensive to my family, do they think we should not exist? When our children were young, I used to have nightmares that such bigots would somehow get control and our children would be taken away from us. Straight parents, think how that would feel. I thought this was a tolerant and egalitarian country - to go down the road of allowing religious groups of any description to be allowed to discriminate is a step back towards prejudice. I may not agree with religion, but I wouldn't dream of discriminating against religious people in the services I provide in my work (IT). So why should they be allowed to discriminate against people like me?

WARNING - Don't scoff at the Holy Bible! It maybe this nation's only hope of redemption. Many ignore the Bible at their own peril and declare it to be irrelevant for today, or just a book. However, the Bible declares itself to be God's word to the human race, and unlike most of today's pundits has proven its infalibility a thousand times with predictions which have come to pass. None have ever failed.
If it is the voice of God, beware; for the scriptures speak expressly about this whole debate on gay expression, stating in the strongest terms that it is not acceptable to God (neither is any other form of sexual behaviour other than inside of the marriage covenant), and that those who practice or endorse such lifestyles will be excluded from heaven - eternally. That only leaves one place for such transgressors of God's will.
In the days of Lot (Genesis ch.19), Lot is criticised by the gays of Sodom for trying to warn them to change. They didn't change, and God destroyed Sodom!
When the gay movement reaches its zenith worldwide, God's judgement will again be poured out. Jesus said 'As it was in the days of Lot, so shall it be when I return to judge this world'.
God loves all people, and is not willing that any should perish, but encourages all to come to repentance that they might be forgiven.
Gay representatives will not be authorised to grant you entrance to heaven, nor will any government, regardless of their legislation. God alone will decide.

At 03:51 PM on 24 Jan 2007, Lester Wade wrote:
I think people are missing the point. Its not about sex and sin so much as whether gay parents actually make GOOD parents. There are plenty of studies out there to suggest they don't
Er, wrong. Lesbian parents tend to make better parents, on average, than straights. Possibly because in order to become parents as lesbians, it's a lot of hard work and effort whichever way you go about it (a short relationship with a man was the traditional way, now it's more likely to be donor insemination from a friend). It'll probably get more equal once discrimination against lesbians and gays becomes as unacceptable as discrimination against black people.
So, hey, why not have all adoption agencies assess each individual couple, and decide on the basis of whether they think that particular couple would make good parents? What a radical idea!

Your Religion = Your Problem.

Prejudice = Pre Judging.

What a poor thing for a church to be involved in

I can't help thinking all this discussion about legal opt-outs, church versus law etc is missing a vital point somewhere. What is right for the children being adopted?

I don't consider myself a religious person and I have absolutely nothing against gay people. Good on them for being strong enough to fight for social acceptance and actually getting this law introduced.

However; do I believe it's right for gay people to have children? Absolutely not. This just seems totally wrong from the child's warefare perspective, regardless of what the church thinks or what the law thinks. The law should protect gay people from discrimination but it has a stronger responsibility to protect children.

There have been so many studies into the need for male and female influences in a childs life for the child to be healthy that simply cannot be ignored. And please don't raise single-parents as an argument as that's apples and oranges in comparison.

So, in my opinion (if I'm allowed to have one without breaking the law), the law should protect gay rights, but not at the exclusion of everything else. Overriding this law should be the child protection laws that should prevent children from being placed in the care of same-sex partners for the sake of the child's own healthy development.

Will a law make me believe otherwise? No. Will a law force the church or those with deeply help religious beliefs to change their mind on this? No. Surely to do so would turn the discrimination laws on their heads and be another example of 'PC' gone mad?

At 04:36 PM on 24 Jan 2007, Mike wrote: "Let all Christians unite to oppose this unjust attack against the Church. Christians have a duty to disobey unjust laws and a government which rules without justice should be swept from power by the people."

Could someone please remind me when the Catholic Church in Nazi Germany called on Christians to oppose that government and to refuse to serve in the concentration camps where gay people were killed alongside Jews?

Luke #94: Proved, has it been? So, there's no need for faith any more then, is there?

Surely the service that the adoption agencies provide is to the children? Unless they are discriminating against the children the agencies should not be breaking the law. Or are the children being regarded as goods or services being provided to prospective adoptive parents which would be a sorry state of affairs.

True religion is not the problem. And this issue is not about discrimination, but about forcing people who seek to live for God, their creator, to approve people who are going against Him.

Forcing any Christian to approve or aid people living lifestyles in opposition to God, is to put us in an impossible situation.

We are not speaking out against a group of people, Christ Himself never discriminated, he spoke to the unloved the outcasts of society. So in judging us, please look to Jesus. He is the one we try to follow. If you can find fault in His life or His words then lets talk about it.

This debate only goes to show that no one has really spent the time in looking at our beliefs closely enough. And more to the point discrimination works in both directions. If we are to be discriminated against, why shouldn't we speak out as others are free to do.

I pity the person who speaks out against the gay minority, yet those who speak out against Christianity and Jesus are heralded as freedom fighters. If there is hypocracy let us all be aware that we are capable of it!

I understand neither the objections to this statement or what is so hard to grasp that children should be raised by a mother AND a father. Not 2 mothers or 2 fathers.
I am adopted and am bloody glad that i had a mother and a father.
Children should not be subjected to having both parents the same sex.

There is a get out clause for conscientios objectors at time of ware who are normally of the religeous disposition. Let us not forget that Gandhi served as stretcher bearer and was a sergeant major in the Indian Ambulance Corps.

I would hope that both sides of this argument would respect each others belifs and go to the agency that can offer them what they want.

No point making sweeping laws when they are unworkable.

As a former mixed race child in care I despair of the mantra "the child is paramount" and then everybody rushes to prove that is total nonsense. Religion, homophobia, racism and class get in the way.

Luckily I am old enough to have avoided the "colour coded" period of adoption and fostering. Otherwise I would have remained in care until I was 18. A white family did very nicely thanks. Now the gay community are being judge en mass as not suitable by some. Utter rubbish. Judge the two individuals first - not their sexuality, religion or anything else. Those can be looked at later.

Lose the baggage. All parentless child needs from a new family is love, understanding and if he or she was like me, an awful lot of patience

It does somewhat anger me that, supposedly in a society where we have the freedom to think and say what we wish to, that there are religious leaders and people of various faiths that share their interpretation of one religious text: the Bible, as if it should be absorbed by a homogeneous mass. Obviously people who do not wish to follow a religious lifestyle or belief system don't have to observe what the Anglicans say or what the Catholics believe, but it is not for those people to maintain a 'God says this...the Bible says that'attitude. It is an interpretive minefield at the best of times and arguably hypocritical too.
Loving thy neighbour must become an issue of 'conscience' when it is revealed that the neighbour is a gay/lesbian couple looking to adopt via a religious adoption service.

Equality, equality, equality.

The G-A-Y group in London (they run two bars and one club) refuse admission to people who are not gay.

Jeremy Joseph puts On all their adverts statements like;

"Please note that G-A-Y is a LESBIAN & GAY Club, not a concert venue - please respect this to save disappointment"

and on the tickets and vouchers they print;

"G-A-Y has a strict majority lesbian and gay door policy. Ignoring this invalidates your voucher and management reserves the right to refuse admission"

This is a clear warning that they wont admitt you if they think you are stright.

So how are they being allowed to breach the Equality Act. If any other pub put a sign up stating 'no-gays' the police would be round in a flash.