Claire  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> have been shown in their true colours. They'd rather leave kids rotting
>> a failing social care system than have to deal with people who just
>> happen to be gay.

> Since they would have done anyway without the help of the church it just
> goes to show how the church can do good if let to.

Did Harold Shipman kill _every_ one of his patients? No, he was a 
perfectly good doctor to most of them, and could have continued to be, if 
let to. Anyway, the ones he killed were old and smelled of wee.

>> > Every action has a consequence. All I see happening here is that they
>> > would not be bullied into going against their conscience on the issue
>> > and you object to that because YOU did not get your own way.

>> I have no objection to them deciding they are their only choices. I
>> just think it marks them out as fairly loathsome individuals.

> And I think that belief is prejudiced and ...well, "bigoted".

I s'pose you could describe me as prejudiced against bigots, yes. I don't 
think that's a bad thing.

>> You, otoh, are defending them.

> So in spite of everything I have said to you and the common ground we
> have found over this last few days you will think that also makes me a
> "fairly loathsome individual" right? :-/ So be it – that says far more
> about you than it does about me!

<sigh> You've already said that you don't professionally discriminate. 
However, you _are_ refusing to condemn those who do.

If you feel that you're marked by the company you keep, then fine.

>> > I can’t speak for people I do not know. For me personally though I
>> > would have problems if my church was involved in this. My
>> > understanding of my faith would lead me to conclude that this is not
>> > something Christians should be involved in.

>> You don't think that Christians should be involved in finding homes for
>> kids in need?

> No, I don't think Christians should be supporting a lifestyle that
> contradicts the biblical teaching.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how _refusing to discriminate_ is 
the same as _supporting_?

> Just like a non-drug user would have issues if asked to buy somebody's 
> Crack for them!

<chuckle> Was that a deliberate choice, given the context?

It's an abysmal analogy, though.
Firstly, nobody's asking the adoption agency to act as a dating agency 
for people who happen to be gay.
Secondly, buying class A drugs is illegal. Being gay isn't, however much 
your friends may wish it was.

>> > However were I asked to comment on whether I thought homosexual ACTS
>> > were in keeping with Christian teaching and should the church be
>> > endorsing it I would have to answer “I’m sorry but no”.

>> Nobody's _asking_ you to "endorse" any acts. Merely to deal with
>> everybody equally.

> You and I have a differing understanding of the meaning of "equal" it
> seems. Equality means also having an equal right to individual
> conscience.

Correct.
But not to enforce that conscience at the expense of the rights of 
others. The Human Rights Act, which you brought into the debate, is quite 
clear and explicit on that.

>> >> >> So - it would seem that we're all agreed that the C of E face the
>> >> >> same choice :- accept gay clergy & female bishops; break the law;
>> >> >> or close.

>> >> > No. The CoE is not breaking any law. The CoE is covered by Article
>> >> > 9 of the Human Rights Act!

>> >> That's odd. Article 9 seems to include... "2 Freedom to manifest
>> >> one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations
>> >> as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society
>> >> ... for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

>> > "such limitations as are prescribed by law and are ***necessary ****"

>> In other words, because you don't think the Equality Act (Sexual
>> Orientation) Regulations 2007 is necessary, it shouldn't apply to you &
>> your friends.

> No, it is not necessary or just to apply that Act to the church.

Right. Gotcha.

Any other laws you don't think should apply to the church?
Perhaps vicars shouldn't have to pay income tax? Or speeding tickets?

>> > Face it, you're not goint to win on this one. You have no business at
>> > all there!

>> Just as much "business" as the law has in preventing discrimination in
>> any other field.
>>
>> BTW, since you still don't seem to have found the applicable law,
>> despite being given a pointer to the message containing
>> it...http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20071263_en_1
>>
>> Section 14 is the bit I have a big problem with, and which allows the
>> churches to continue to directly discriminate in a way that would be
>> illegal for any other employer, based solely on a game of Chinese
>> Whispers with an invisible friend.

> Ha fantastic!!! :-) See above. What you see as a loophole I see as a
> protection of my civil liberties. :-) :-)

At the expense of others. Because you think YOUR liberties are more 
important than those of other people.

In a small child, that'd be termed "selfish behaviour", and the brat 
would be told to play nicely with the other children.

>> I find that unjust and unjustifiable. You, clearly, don't.

> That’s correct. :-)

You've already denied claiming that YOUR view of your rights is more 
important than the rights of others, but you now seem to be going back on 
that, and based on nothing more than a bloke in a frock and a funny 
collar told you that your invisible friend said so.

>> OTOH, the Charity Tribunal seems to have specifically ruled that that
>> get- out didn't apply in the case of Catholic Care and similar
>> agencies.

> Well I disagree with that and all said and done, this is a democracy, I
> am entitled to disagree.

Indeed you are. But that doesn't give you the right to break the law. 
Campaign for it to be changed, sure. But obey it in the meantime or face 
the legal consequences.

Or, of course, you could take your ball and go home in a sulk because the 
other children won't let you win.

On 2 Nov 2009 14:14:22 GMT, Adrian  wrote:

>Me? Not at all. I'm merely trying to get you to consider the priorities 
>to society in general of your religious preferences against other 
>people's basic human rights. It seems that we've just about done that, 
>and that - despite your protestations to the contrary - you're convinced 
>that your religious preference really IS more important to society in 
>general than other people's basic human rights are.

OTOH perhaps you feel that political correctness and
non-discrimination are more important to society than the well-being
of a child, and that it is OK to harm children in order to avoid
offending a minority group (or their champions)?

When do you intend to campaign for the right of paedophiles to adopt a
child?  Another minority group that should surely not be discriminated
against.

-- 
Cynic

On 2 Nov 2009 15:02:19 GMT, Adrian  wrote:

You say:
>I don't feel that children are harmed by being in a family where the 
>adoptive parents just happen to be gay.

But then you say:
>Sure, they might be bullied at school because of it.

The reason I feel that a child is greatly disadvantaged if raised by a
gay couple is *precisely* because they will not be treated the same by
the rest of society.  It has nothing to do with what I think of the
couple's parenting skills.  Raising an adopted child is difficult
enough without deliberately introducing large obsticles.

> But, equally, they 
>may be bullied at school for ginger hair or glasses or a limp or whatever 
>minor reason. Kids are little shits. <shrug>

Oh, that's OK then.  A child might fall over while running and break
his nose, so therefore it's OK if a parent punches him and breaks it
*that* way?

>You may, of course, differ on that - as Claire seems to. However, Claire 
>obviously doesn't think it THAT big a deal, because she was quite adamant 
>that she wouldn't go as far as taking children (even adoptive) away from 
>such a family. The law clearly doesn't think it a big deal, either, 
>because adoptions into gay families are perfectly (and explicitly) legal.

There is a *huge* difference between deciding whether to place a child
with a particular family they have never met, and deciding whether to
remove a child from a family it has bonded with.  At least 60% of
present parents would not be eligible to adopt, and that's a low
guess.

>Surely very few people would argue against kids being a damn sight better 
>off with a gay family than left in care...?

Ah.  The false dichotomy.

Don't you feel a gay couple is similarly far better off not having
children than being run over by a steamroller?

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:fatte5hvsgb5cj3ipekqf6dk5j30qo79kq@4ax.com...
> The reason I feel that a child is greatly disadvantaged if raised by a
> gay couple is *precisely* because they will not be treated the same by
> the rest of society.  It has nothing to do with what I think of the
> couple's parenting skills.
Ah ha!
So you too believe in mob rule!  Why, then, did you criticise me for saying 
that the behaviour of others should be constrained by the desires of 
society?

Cynic  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

> You say:
>>I don't feel that children are harmed by being in a family where the
>>adoptive parents just happen to be gay.

> But then you say:
>>Sure, they might be bullied at school because of it.

> The reason I feel that a child is greatly disadvantaged if raised by a
> gay couple is *precisely* because they will not be treated the same by
> the rest of society. It has nothing to do with what I think of the
> couple's parenting skills.  Raising an adopted child is difficult enough
> without deliberately introducing large obsticles.

Better make sure that only nice middle-class people from nice areas with 
lots of disposable income can adopt, then.

>> But, equally, they may be bullied at school for ginger hair or glasses 
>> or a limp or whatever minor reason. Kids are little shits. <shrug>

> Oh, that's OK then.  A child might fall over while running and break his
> nose, so therefore it's OK if a parent punches him and breaks it *that*
> way?

Ah. The false dichotomy.

Anyway, surely it's fine if the parent beats the kid senseless, as long 
as they don't happen to then kiss another bloke.

>>You may, of course, differ on that - as Claire seems to. However, Claire
>>obviously doesn't think it THAT big a deal, because she was quite
>>adamant that she wouldn't go as far as taking children (even adoptive)
>>away from such a family. 

> There is a *huge* difference between deciding whether to place a child
> with a particular family they have never met, and deciding whether to
> remove a child from a family it has bonded with.  At least 60% of
> present parents would not be eligible to adopt, and that's a low guess.

...and just look at how their spawn grow up...

Oh, and...
>> The law clearly doesn't think it a big deal, either, because adoptions 
>> into gay families are perfectly (and explicitly) legal.

>>Surely very few people would argue against kids being a damn sight
>>better off with a gay family than left in care...?

> Ah.  The false dichotomy.

Not really. Not when you consider that some adoption agencies would 
rather leave the kids in care than work with gay people.