95 replies to this topic

[Alan]

Do you think religious adoption agencies should be allowed to opt out of allowing homosexual couples to adopt orphans etc? See http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/6289301.stm

[kes]

yes,....

[Dave]

Added poll to discourage yes/no answer posts.

Constructive comments (reasons for or against) on topic please.

(Poll Bump re-enabled for this forum)

-----------------

My reason for my voting 'yes' isn't so much to do with religious agencies but more to do with any adoption agencies. I assert that this whole 'gay rights' thing is going too far. However (see below) my points about why I would disagree with 'gay' adoption in general should really be in a different topic.

[Carr Millite]

Absolutely not.
Homosexuals are equals and should be treated as such.

[Dave]

Equal in what sense? Equal in the sense that they can make their own children as a couple? Me thinks not. But, having said that, there are normal people who can't have children (so before anyone argues that point...), I think (assert) that kids need a mother and a father in order to grow up well balanced.

[BtC]

Dave, on Jan 23 2007, 02:19 PM, said:

Equal in what sense? Equal in the sense that they can make their own children as a couple? Me thinks not.

As equal as any other couple unable to naturally produce children.

If we have laws, I don't think there should be any opt-out on the grounds of religion, After all, it's a lifestyle choice. I don't think, for instance, that Sikhs should be allowed to ride motorcycles without a helmet. We all have to make decisions and sacrifices every day and just because you've chosen to follow a particular religion shouldn't mean you get special dispensation from the laws of the land.

[Dave]

(BtC) Sorry - I added something to address your first point in an edit.

I agree about religion not being special enough for exemption. Sorry (again) - I seem to have made the question a bit murky.

[Griffin]

Given all that has happened over decades in Catholic institutions looking after children, both here and in Ireland, I believe all these institutions should be closed down. The care of children should be firmly in the hands of the state, and subject only to the relevant laws and standards prescribed by the state. If the law says that same-sex couples are equal in some things, they should be equal in all things. Look how many "normal" heterosexual couples have made a complete bags of bringing up children - often the reason why they are in institutional care or up for adoption in the first place.

[Voll]

No, because I can't think of any reason why I should vote yes.

Edited by Voll, 23 January 2007 - 02:44 PM.

[Graham]

Another aspect of this law would seem to mean that any vicar/minister/church who refused to bless a homosexual civil partnership with a church service could be taken to court for contravening it. Given that Christian groups assert that homosexuality is contra to the teaching of the Bible, they would argue that this gives grounds for such a refusal. This law states otherwise and is bound to cause issues

[Alan]

On the grounds of harmonious co-existence with those whose faith prevents it, I do believe that common sense should prevail and if a vicar or priest refused to sanctify a same sex marriage then that's his/her prerogative. However, I agree with Griff that care of orphans should be controlled by the state. Religious groups can help in caring, fundraising etc but should not control the process. Therefore there is no need to give them any exemption. By the way I'm a self-confessed homophobe with an irrational hatred of bummers but I recognise it as a weakness of mine and not something of which to be proud

[Commers]

I agree, Alan. I think the time has come for society to be brutally assertive about secularism. It should be articulated loudly that faith and religion are a personal and private matter and that the strength of our society lies in its acceptance of private rights to observe religion, subject to the huge public interest in religion not having any role in public life. The practical conclusions of this means disestablishment, stripping established churches of any political power, scrapping state schools and, Ministers, including the Prime Minister disallowing religious considerations to influence policy.

I don't have a problem with single-sex couples adopting children. I went to school with a lad whose father left his family at an early age and he was looked after by his mother and significantly older sister - in essence he was brought up by a single-sex 'couple' and there's no 'imbalance' in him that I can see.

[kes]

looked after by his mother comstock, thats the operative word?my objection is that the kid brought up by two gays, is going to get some hammer from his or her piers at school etc ,its not fair on the kid??

[Commers]

I remember him spending an awful lot of time with his sister, whilst his mother took on the role of breadwinner. His sister would have had a major influence on him.

I'd agree that a child in the care of a homosexual, single-sex couple may be prone to bullying. But it could be argued that the children partaking in the act of bullying are merely channeling the prejudices of their 'normal' parents. Therefore, attitudes need to change.

[kes]

comstock, attitudes wont change, in fact thing,s are getting worse, did you see that mobile phone film on the news, were pupils were openly ridiculing a temp teacher, who happend to be asian,just imagine the crap a kid with the background we are talking about, would have to put up with?