Tony Blair: torn between two loves

The leader of the secular government finds himself in the same position as the nation's spiritual leader. Rowan Williams had to choose whether to go with his personal, "affirming Catholic" principles and back the gays in the Anglican Communion, or back the orthodox in the name of Church unity. Anglicans are now arguing over whether he ever was a liberal at all. Now the Prime Minister faces a similar dilemma over the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Ostensibly a supporter of gay rights and a promoter of gays, as we report he is under pressure from the Roman Catholic Church, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and huge numbers of evangelicals to create an exemption for Catholic adoption agencies in the Sexual Orientation Regulations. His position is invidious. Either he does this, and risks alienating all his cabinet, with the exception of Ruth Kelly, herself a Catholic and member of Opus Dei. Or he refuses to do it, and risks alienating vast numbers of Catholics in the UK, costing the Labour Party valuable votes in Scotland in particular. I would love to know Gordon Brown's position on this.

It was always said of Blair that he was Christian before he was a socialist. His Christian credentials are not in doubt, although people argue over whether his allegiance is first to the Church of England, to which he technically belongs, or the Roman Catholic Church. It is certainly arguable whether or not he is a socialist, in the traditional sense of that word. What seems not to be in doubt is that his spiritual convictions came before his political ones, which might give us some clue as to which way he will go.

This is turning out to be one of those rare stories that is moving out of the religious sphere into the political one. It seems more serious even than the education story, when the Catholic Church, lead on that occasion by Archbishop Vin Nichols in Birmingham, forced the Government into a humiliating climb-down, that time over the suggestion that 25 per cent other or no-faith quotas be imposed on faith schools.

The Church is showing again and again that it can win these battles. And it is the Catholic Church that is at the fore. As with the British Airways Cross story, Cantuar has entered the fray comparatively late in the day. Until his letter, the most recent statement on the SORs from the established church was the one issued last June in response to the Government's initial consultation. But this is not a criticism. As with BA, when the threat was implicit of disinvestment, the intervention comes across as all the more powerful, given who it is from, and how well considered it is.

The most likely outcome this time is some sort of fudge, proving perhaps that for all his Catholic leanings, Tony Blair remains a true Anglican at heart. The Catholic agencies might not be given an outright exemption, but just mandated to refer gay couples to other adoption agencies.

John Richardson sounds some warning notes, and AM has some other good material on this story, including a transcript of Rowan Williams' BBC interview. Overall, there remain aspects of all this that continue to concern me. Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society confessed to me that he fears Blair will emerge from this looking in the eyes of many as nothing less than a Vatican puppet. Ebor and Cantuar hinted at similar fears in their letter: "It would be deeply regrettable if in seeking, quite properly, better to defend the rights of a particular group not to be discriminated against, a climate were to be created in which, for example, some feel free to argue that members of the government are not fit to hold public office on the grounds of their faith affiliation. This is hardly evidence of a balanced and reasonable public debate."

The Society has written to Ruth Kelly over reports that an exemption might be on the cards: "The Society is seeking a specific assurance from you that the current draft of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations for England, Wales and Scotland includes harassment provisions and, if so, request to be advised of any differences in wording on harassment from the Northern Ireland Regulations. We also seek to be advised whether the draft Regulations give any additional religious exemptions to those included in the equivalent Regulations for Northern Ireland. We refer to press reports ...speculating about an exemption for religious adoption agencies. As you know, harassment provisions were included in the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 (Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 1661), Regulation 5. Even the Republic of Ireland enacted legislation in 2000 in the Equal Status Act in broadly similar terms and have operated since without difficulty.

"We acknowledge that harassment provisions were omitted from the Religion and Belief provisions in Part 2 of the Equality Act, but this was on freedom of speech grounds that do not apply to sexual orientation any more than they do to race. Given the reasonableness test and high prosecution threshold in the case law on harassment, we do not accept that religious freedom would be curtailed by the inclusion of harassment in these regulations, but their omission could cause real hardship to a vulnerable group in society. It is well established that homophobic bullying is still a significant problem, especially to younger homosexuals and that suicide rates are demonstrably higher for them than their heterosexual peers. To omit protection from harassment in the (Sexual Orientation) Regulations would give the clear signal that 'violating .. dignity'; or 'creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment' is something about which the Government is indifferent. We look forward to hearing from you the answers to the questions posed in the first two paragraphs of this letter. Given the advanced stage which the Regulations have reached, we would request that this be at your earliest convenience."

Besides a visceral dislike of racism, one reason the British public reacted so violently against Jade Goody in Big Brother was because of the bullying. Most people dislike bullies. Many, including myself, have suffered while at school, on public transport or even just walking down the street at the hands of Jade-style bullies. Watching her on Big Brother was compulsive, because it recalled so horrifically some awful memories. It brought it home to me for the first time some of the suffering that must be endured by many of the immigrant communities to this country.

The Guardian has done a big education spread on the Church of England and Bluecoat School dispute, a story broken originally by The Times' own Alexandra Blair.

In this story, it is clear that some of those at the school, the people who do not want it to be reclaimed as a church school, are feeling some of the emotions evoked by bullies in their victims. Similarly, who could blame gay people today, especially those who dream of adopting children, if they are feeling just a little bullied right now? Just when did the churches stop being on the side of the bullied, and start becoming the bully?

I'll end with the moving story of Martin Reynolds, 53, the gay Anglican clergyman from Wales who is spokesman for the Lesbian and Gay Christian movement. He and his partner foster a boy under a long-term arrangement. When he rang a Catholic adoption agency to offer himself and his male partner as prospective parents, they "didn’t get past the receptionist". It was a different story when they rang, posing as atheists. Then, the agency welcomed them. The couple, from Newport, have been together for 27 years and became civil partners last year. Their 19-year-old son has severe learning difficulties and behavioural problems. Without Fr Martin and his partner, the boy would almost certainly have remained in an institution all his life. They became respite carers for him when he was just four, and became long-term foster carers when he was 14 - undergoing a vetting process almost identical to adoption. He said social workers had asked them if they could become long-term foster carers to the boy after a national trawl of potential adopters or long-term fosterers had failed. Martin's partner, Chris Iles, 47, a shopkeeper, is a practising Catholic and they have raised their son as a Catholic, taking him to mass regularly.

Fr Martin described the decision to take the child into their home for long-term fostering as the "best decision we ever made in our lives." He said: "It is extremely hard to find long-term fosterers or adoptive parents for children with special needs, and all the Catholics are doing is closing down possibilities and reducing the options that could mean those children were placed in the most appropriate care." The couple have now offered themselves as prospective adoptive parents or long-term fosterers to a number of agencies, highlighting their experience with severe learning difficulties.
The phone call to, and subsequent rejection by, the Catholic agency was made as part of this effort, he said, and left him with a sense of desperate sadness. Fr Martin said he believed the stance being taken by the Catholic Church in England and Wales was being driven by a hard-line Vatican approach.
He pointed to the actions of Cardinal William Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and second-in-command at the Vatican, in issuing orders banning same-sex adoption by Catholic agencies in the US. "The Catholic agencies raise £10 million towards their work across the UK, and it would be devastating to see that money and their skills lost - what a waste," he said.
"Seeing these people vanish because of a politically driven issue is desperately sad. I bet you that every single worker who works in Catholic adoption agencies is desperately sad about this."

What is interesting about this story, as Stephen Bates blogs, is that Rowan Williams lived next door to Martin when the Archbishop was a bishop in Wales. Their children grew up side-by-side and often played together. Archbishop Williams knows from personal experience how effective same-sex couples can be at fostering, especially as they often end up with the children no-one else wants. Martin and his partner were the last port of call for the agency trying to place their son.

Jonathan Petre has also done a Telegraph blog. I find it fascinating to compare the comments on this blog, and the Guardian and Telegraph. I have to say, I think we have the best debates here with a wide variety of opinion, from ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal. The views of those commenting on the other two are a little, dare I say, predictable. For some more moving testimonies of people involved in gay adoptions, do look at these stories in The Independent, which incidentally has seen sense at last and dropped its ludicrous online subscription charges.

But it is not just those who work in Catholic adoption agencies who are sad as we face a future when they might well be forced to closed down. We are all sad. Desperately so. And all of us, I suspect, from Tony Blair down, just wish it wasn't happening. It is like watching a chalice crash slow motion to the floor and shatter into a thousand pieces, spilling the sacrament all around. There are going to be many broken people and institutions once all this is done, and it might not be the obvious ones who survive.

 

Comments

[Douglas Studdard]

As a communicant of the Episcopal Church USA and Gay i find it hard to believe that there can still be this amount of hypocrisy in our "Anglican Communion" or in the "Roman" Church as well. Gays can raise children as well as straights. I'm not political in anyway but i do take exception to this debate.

[Jill]

I forgot to post a link to the case I referred to:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/09/nabuse09.xml

[J Pearce]

Jill,

In reference to that news story you mentioned, as I recall, the child was offered for adoption at one point because social services were actually aware of the environment it faced. Now, I don't know the full details of why that child wasn't adopted, but perhaps if there had been greater quantity of potential adoptees available, the story would have had a happier ending? Who knows. But I've never claimed that all employees working in the adoption field are perfect or infallible. Nevertheless, you play a very dangerous game if you choose to tar the entire lot of them with the same brush (which I've noticed is something you're pretty good at…).

Using my nous, Jill, I would say that the vetting criteria for potential adoptees has been revised and amended. This is what happens in most fields of human endeavour (except, it seems, in the minds of some of the more cranky religious types, who seem congenitally unable to see the world in any terms other than those dictated by their orthodox beliefs). If it means that more excellent, loving, caring potential adopters are given the green light to adopt, then that can only be a good thing.

I would like to note that in the recent case where a pair of adopters were found guilty of abusing their charges for a number of years, the head of the social services unit responsible stated that current vetting procedures have become much more stringent since the couple who were found guilty were first assessed. Therefore, as a direct result of amending vetting procedures, there is now a greater chance of discarding those people who would not/should not be considered as potential adopters. This is good news, yes?

And weren't the couple in the above case described as "God fearing", as well?

[Jill]

J Pearce, you obviously haven't noticed that social workers will snatch away children whose parents are, shall we say, not the brightest candles on the cake, but when the chips are down and children are being brutally abused by psychopathic stepfathers with the mothers standing by and doing nothing, as with the couple jailed yesterday for torturing a disabled four-year-old, they immediately forget to follow up visits, or report their findings, or find other more pressing things to do.

You are right; I do not trust politicians, like Jack Straw, who I recently pointed out said just a few short years ago that gay marriage was not a possibility, and that children were not trophies and should not be given to same-sex couples, and who has changed his mind, i.e. children ARE now trophies and SHOULD be handed to same sex couples and no Christian must be allowed to say them nay.

Use a bit of nous, J Pearce. If social workers used the same vetting criteria they have used up until recently, hardly any, if any at all, gay couples would get to adopt. Do you think the lobby groups would stand for that? I don't.

And you obviously haven't spotted the wider issue of the threat to our freedom of belief, and ultimately of speech.

[Kate]

Jill: I have read all your posts with objective interest. In important (educational) matters, it is essential to detach from the personal. You are transparently unable to do so.

An impartial search for factual evidence is first priority for any genuine researcher.

Whilst appreciative of your ability to trawl for selective and sensationalist material, I fear you succeed only in exposing yourself.

Yesterday's news revealed yet another horrific child torture scandal - at the hands of BIRTH parents. THOUSANDS of such abuses are documented by the courts, social workers, GPs and psychological/psychiatric services.

In comparison, child abuse by homosexuals hardly registers. Your tunnel-vision is such that you choose to ignore these FACTS.

You continue to post 'opinion' which (on investigation) is invariably gleaned from dubious sources. Yet AGAIN, you say. gay adopters are "more likely to take drugs, and ... statistically have shorter lives (by up to 20 years)".

I concur with Christopher's premise that you are one "who slips in her venomous message at the end of a disingenuously guileless post".

Homosexual men DO NOT have a 20 year shorter lifespan. HIV positive people DO. I have already posted the Department of Health breakdown and figures for HIV positive individuals in the UK.

This you ignore. Instead, you slanderously continue to disseminate, by implication, that ALL homosexuals are DISEASED. By continuing to ignore statistics and facts, you are guilty of gross duplicity.

Along with an obsessive prejudice against homosexuals, you have an obsessive need to prove yourself RIGHT.

It is not a matter of 'academic exercise'. It is a matter of confronting deliberate and malicious misinformation with impartial fact.

I do not believe child welfare is your first priority. Revenge and damaging, discriminatory practice is your first priority. May God have pity on that unwitting "family member" you work so hard to disenfranchise.

[J Pearce]

"I do not believe for one minute that the homosexual couples would fall under the same minute scrutiny, as just about everybody is afraid of the ‘discrimination’ lobby these days, as our cowardly politicians have shown all too clearly."

Jill, here we have your entire modus operandi laid bare for all to see. Breaking this sentence down, we can see that you believe the following:

1. The process for vetting potential adopters is fatally flawed.

2. By extension, the professionals who work in this field are essentially unfit to do their jobs to the required standard.

3. The above professionals are intrinsically biased, preferring to capitualte to alleged pressure group lobbying rather than exercise their professional clinical judgement.

4. All politicians are bent and/or morally bankrupt.

5. All lobbying pressure groups exercise malign influence over our elected representatives.

6. Excepting, of course, Christians (for which there is no evidence of them pressurising the Government, oh no...).

Do you live in some kind of black hole of existential emptiness, Jill? Is your life so bad, that you have to think ill of everybody? I'll stick with my more-intellectual-than-thou approach to life, thanks, if the alternative is the kind of end-of-life-as-we-know-it, head in the sand doomsday scaremongering that you prefer to live by!

By the way, do you watch Dad's Army? I'm wondering if you've based your entire belief system around Private Frazer rather than Jesus Christ:

"We're allll Doomed, I tell ye - DOOOMED!!"

[Jill]

Your ‘more-intellectual-than-thou’ approach does you no credit, J Pearce. This is children’s lives we are talking about, not some academic exercise. The children of the two women I mentioned earlier had a father, who was very much involved in their lives. I can’t remember how old they were when the marriage broke up but they were certainly school age. This is quite different to, say, two men-hating lesbians who produce a child via such props as pickle jars and turkey basters. Try and imagine how you would feel if you discovered that you had been ‘manufactured’ in this way. Having no knowledge or experience of a father devalues a man’s role in society totally. Our roots are very important to us. I don’t believe you have read the link I posted, because if you had you would know that there is in fact no reliable evidence to show how successful gay adoptions are.

Kate, I was responding to an earlier comment on whole groups of people being filtered out of the adoption process, but once again you have chosen to twist what I have said, fuelling your distorted view of what you imagine to be my ‘obsession’. The groups I mentioned were quite rightly excluded. But there were other groups of people routinely excluded – the too old, for instance, which at one time would have been anyone over the age of about 35, the unhealthy, smokers … the list goes on. Now that agencies are being forced to accept homosexual couples, who may also be older, are far more likely to be unhealthy, are more likely to take drugs, and who statistically have shorter lives (by up to 20 years) does this mean that the general pool of would-be adopters is going to have to fall in line? At that rate almost anyone will be able to adopt. I do not believe for one minute that the homosexual couples would fall under the same minute scrutiny, as just about everybody is afraid of the ‘discrimination’ lobby these days, as our cowardly politicians have shown all too clearly.

Christopher, controlling by bullying and abuse is far more effective than invoking guilt. (Who is invoking guilt? Not me.) As for pros and cons, perhaps you would care to let us have your list of pros in the matter of gay adoption. Bearing in mind, of course, that it is the interests of the child that are paramount. (Short term solutions do not count; I fully accept that in some instances short term fostering by one sex may be necessary.) And a committed Christian is one who follows the precepts of scripture embodied by Christ based on two thousand years of teaching and tradition, tempered by reason. Only the last part is debatable here, your reasoning being different to mine, but you can’t ignore the others, which some people seem to want to do. And Christianity is a way of life, not merely a fine set of academic principles.

[Kate]

Dear Jill

Drug addicts, rapists and 'paedophiles' (your usual conjunction) are all "disordered" personalities engaged in illegal activities.

Homosexuals are generally, ordinary, decent, individuals who go about their daily business in an identical manner to other law-abiding citizens.

Homosexual orientation is no longer illegal under Law. Whether or not you agree that this should be so, it is, in the REAL world, the fact.

To insist on an criminal equivalence does your case no credit. It presents as a personal antipathy, discrimination and slander. These cases you unearth to 'support' that obsession do not stack up.

The one you link above is about the right of an individual (on grounds of Christian conscience) to withdraw his labour without penalty. It is on a par with Muslim taxi-drivers who refuse to carry guide dogs, or the Muslim police officer who refused to shake hands with a superior - both on grounds of religious conscience.

You case is different. Whilst masquerading under 'Christian concern', your words on the page; your unwillingness to accept the REAL FACTS of where children are 'at risk'; reveal a distasteful personal and corrosive obsession.

[Christopher]

Well, Jill, you think it spiteful to suggest that people who blog here might not be all they claim to be. Kate has already clarified that there is a control technique, often used by mothers, to win an argument not by persuasion but by invoking guilt: "Telling me something I don't want to hear is being unkind to me".

You use rhetoric very well, Jill; here is an example: you say "Mr McClintock, a committed Christian" (my italics). Now why should he be a committed christian anymore than Frank or Kate is?

And as for your pros and cons list......What is there to say? Try this : "I made a list of pros and cons against faith schools, and guess what? It is opinion Jill.....and some people's opinion is carefully thought out and some people's is prejudged or knee-jerk. So where is the clue about how we are to judge the quality of the proffered opinion? Oh...er....did someone just whisper "anglicanmainstream"?

[J Pearce]

What amuses me so much about your postings, Jill, is the fact that even though there is a perfectly reasonable amount of evidence to show

a) gay adoption can succeed in a positive manner, and
b) heterosexual adopters can succumb to exactly the same foibles that you've smeared homosexuals with,

you still don't appear to have the intellectual capacity to reach a reasonable and balanced perspective. Even after having seen for yourself that homosexual adoption can work!

You remind me of an inverse version of the three wise monkeys: "Hear all evil, see all evil, speak all evil".

[Jill]

The case of former magistrate Andrew McLintock has now been heard but we are still awaiting the outcome. (For anyone who doesn’t know, Mr McClintock, a committed Christian, was forced to resign his role as a magistrate on the family panel last year when he asked to withdraw from cases where he would be required to make an order for a child to be placed in the care of a same-sex couple.as it went against his Christian conscience and against his legal obligation to act in the best interest of the child, based on all available evidence.)

The testimony of the expert witness in the case has been released, and should be read CAREFULLY.

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/McClintockByrdWS%20(3)%20(2).doc

I tried drawing up a list of pros and cons on same-sex adoption but I had to give up, because the ‘con’ list got too long and the only ‘pro’ I could think of has since been blasted out of the water – that is, that there is a shortage of married couples wishing to adopt. Now this has been found to be not the case at all. As for ‘discrimination against a whole group of people, what nonsense! We have always discriminated where adoption is concerned, as whole groups of drug addicts, alcoholics and rapists will undoubtedly know.

[Jill]

And what, pray, is wrong with the Telegraph, Christopher? Especially now that nice Mr Petre has a blog …

I must check it out to see if the bloggers there make spiteful personal remarks about their fellow bloggers.

For the people who think I make all these things up myself, I can assure you I don’t, I spend quite a lot of time researching this information, unlike some of those who preen themselves on their open-mindedness but are remarkably uninformed on some issues.

We should perhaps take a view in say 20 years’ time when we see just how ‘permanent, faithful and stable’ civil partnerships are, and how many young lives have been ruined by this ghastly social experiment.

[Christopher]

JPearce said: "Is this not a blatant contradiction in terms, Jill? First of all, you disavow any relationship between the two, then you immediately claim that there is, in fact, a link. Like I have said previously, there is a recurrent theme to your posts on homosexuality, where you inevitably feel compelled to raise the subject of paedophilia."

Good question! Is Jill plainly ingenuous, a nice Telegraph-reading christian 'lady' who doesn't have much idea of logic but means well...or....is she a shameless betrayer of friends' confidences, who slips in her venomous message at the end of a disingenuously guileless post, the parish poison-pen writer with the same cheery smile on her way to evensong...via the postbox? You decide!

Anyway, according to her flawed logic exposed by JPearce, clearly there IS a 'proven link' between paedophilia and heterosexuality.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/6334887.stm

I see the woman convicted portrayed herself as 'a god-fearing, respectable figure', while her husband sexually assaulted some of the girls in their care. Victoria Climbié was murdered by her 'devoutly religious' aunt, establishing beyond doubt, according to Jill's logic, a link between religiosity and child abuse.

[Frank Schnittger]

When one considers that natural parents are not vetted in any way whatsoever, and are often totally unprepared and sometimes even unwilling to take on the responsibilities of parenthood, Christians should embrace the fact that some people are prepared to take on voluntarily the enormous responsibilities that parenthood involves.

It is a scandal that they should seek to impute ignoble motives for this: paedophilia is a horrendous crime of which no one should be accused without evidence. The vast majority of child abuse is committed by natural parents. Are we suggesting they should be sterilised?

Rather Christians should be overjoyed that even those who cannot have children of their own are prepared to make the sacrifices that parenthood involves. The vetting process should weed out all who are unsuited to the task. All else is blatant prejudice and a denial of parental love to those who need it most.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Sorry Christopher

I have not had as much access to the computer lately, as I have been very busy and out of Haifa.

[J Pearce]

"To answer Mike Homfray’s comment, I have never posted, here or anywhere else, that I think homosexuals are paedophiles. Homosexuals are homosexual, paedophiles are paedophiles. However, there IS a link between homosexuality and paedophilia, considerably more so than between heterosexuality and paedophilia."

Is this not a blatant contradiction in terms, Jill? First of all, you disavow any relationship between the two, then you immediately claim that there is, in fact, a link. Like I have said previously, there is a recurrent theme to your posts on homosexuality, where you inevitably feel compelled to raise the subject of paedophilia. Therefore, it appears obvious to any casual observer that in your mind, one state of being (homosexuality) cannot exist without the other (paedophilia).

I find it astoundingly hypocritical that you purport to maintain gay "friends", whilst at the same time, continually seek to reinforce anti-gay propoganda on this blog, by perpetually drawing parallels between gays and paedophiles (and all the attendant "statistics" you use to butress your arguments).

The whole concept of gay adoption has necessitated the shining of torches into places where many gay people would prefer them not to be shone.

The same argument could equally be made of the Church. There has been a lot of raw, anti-homosexual prejudices aired on these threads by people who purport to be "loving" Christians.

"...I know two lesbians who have very successfully brought up two children, the natural children of one of the partners – both are now adults and married. However, for every one instance like that and the one you speak of, there are likely to be others where the outcomes are not so happy."

You claim to have seen, for yourself, that homosexuals are prefectly capable of raising adopted children. Yet you would still seek to deny them, as a group, the opportunities to do so. You couch your arguments in terms of "risk" - well, there is risk in almost all aspects of human endeavour. That is what adoption agencies exist for - to manage the risk when placing children for adoption. Potential adopters should be vetted on the basis of their suitability to adopt. It would be seen as wholly inappropriate to invalidate a potential adopting couple purely on the grounds of class, race, or perhaps even religion. The same criteria should apply to homosexuals, i.e. they should not be immdediately ruled out of the process simply on the basis of their sexuality.

You are right, Jill, to point out that certain adoption agency workers may be over-zealous in the application of their own prejudices, but that is no reason to deprive an entire group within society the opportunity to positively contribute to society, via the adoption process.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

It is very refreshing to hear someone who isn't Jewish praise Judaism for grappling with everyday problems.

Thank you for all those who appreciate that Jews do not take the Bible as gospel in the same way as some other groups, but on the other hand, don't discard its teachings when they appear to clash with modernity.

Judaism is all about a humane reading of the divine text.

[Kate]

Jill: I fear you have misunderstood the essential distinctions I made in my post.

You say: "as to ‘rights’, well, I do not think anyone has a ‘right’ to a child."

In my response to you I have already stated: "I am NOT of the opinion that just ANY adult has an automatic RIGHT to adopt."

I think you must have missed, or skipped, my argument and evidence for, the democratic principle of equality under the law. To award ALL individuals equal rights does NOT mean that just any old 'gay' or any old heterosexual can adopt a child.

At my disposal, I have a hefty file of evidence on overtly conforming, married, Christian, birth parents who have abused children in adhering rigidly to the injunction 'spare the rod and spoil the child'.

Then there are those who regard the smallest deviation from the rules as 'sin' and devise other suitable punishment - lock-ups, food deprivation, ridicule, silence.

Children thrive in a stable loving environment with clear parameters. There must be rules, but children are children, not mini-adults, there must always be flexibility. The longer I go on, the more I understand the essential need for humour. Parents with an ability to laugh at themselves and at the unwitting small mishaps of the child do their children a great service.

As Frank has said, we are from a place where rigid adherence to absolute rules disenfranchised, abused, and exploited the weakest in society - the poorest and the uneducated - at that time, defined as 'the sinners'.

From the Northern Irish perspective, your literal biblical standpoint corresponds only to that of Rev Ian Paisley, it has no place in the Anglican Church of Ireland.

In reality, the debate on whether or not homosexual couples should be able to adopt is long over. This thread is about exemptions under the law. It is regrettable that you have allowed your obsession with homosexuality to deflect it into so many 'dark corners'.

Throughout all this, it has been my intention to show the complexities inherent in presuming to KNOW anything absolutely. Particularly in the field of human nature. I think your position is quite different.

It is summed up in the statement: "I disagree with your last paragraph, though. There are moral ‘absolutes’."

That is very interesting. Do they include 'abstaining from false witness' as absolute truth? Do they include 'a duty' to target and dehumanise those whom we believe to be in a 'state of sin'?

Are we talking exclusively about UK or western 'absolutes' or do we include those communities which have religious and cultural practices which we find abhorrent?

Finally, is a moral absolute only defined as such if it is declared by a Christian denomination? At this point in the debate, I'd personally prefer to be guided by the Jews - Orthodox, Conservative and Reform.

All of these have quietly been working away to a better understanding of the homosexual being in the world.

Finally Jill: "Child abuse is dreadful, it ruins people’s lives and clouds their whole self-worth. The next question is, what is the best way to stop it? Not to put children into high risk situations would be a good start."

Agreed. It is the only area in all my years of work which has given me cause to lie awake at night and plot horrific retribution. Unfortunately, my own experience and all the research available confirms that children are MOST at risk from birth parents and/or relatives - sometimes both. How can that be stopped? The numbers are in the thousands and those are only what we know.

Your great fear - homosexual men and/or paedophiles - account for a tiny, tiny percentage. The vast majority of men who prey on children do not have a gender preference - they are men who also have adult sexual relationships.

Is it moral to ignore that fact and to focus on a tiny minority? Taken to its logical conclusion, there should be a data base of psychological profiles on every member of society; those found to be questionable should be neutered. That would wipe out the REAL problem.

I am not being fatuous Jill. There is no solution.

Jean: I have already responded to your post on 'domestic violence'. However, you also say:

"I have been confronted with more confessions of morally dubious sexual fantasies involving pre pubescents from my gay friends than from my straight ones."

Would those 'gay friends' include lesbians or are these fantasies purely the province of homosexual men?

It is quite an extraordinary statement in that you seem to be suggesting this is a 'common' feature of homosexuality.
Since lesbians are also homosexual I must conclude that it applies equally. OR is your use of the word 'gay' meant to signify a distinction.

[Alice C. Linsley]

Christopher, please try to read the Bible. You may find it soothing to your soul.

I'll address a few of your statements. First, Archbishop Akinola never said that gay people are worse than dogs. You are putting those words into his mouth. Now, if I am wrong about this, please correct me by pointing me to the source of your statement.

Second, I am not homophobic, but you can accuse me of that if it makes you feel better.

Third, I've never quoted the Bible at you. It is not my style to quote scripture although I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God and a trustworthy document.

Fourth, your interpretation of the story of Noah's curse of Ham as justification for slavery of the black race is not now nor has it ever been widely held.

[Frank Schnittger]

"Child abuse is dreadful, it ruins people’s lives and clouds their whole self-worth. The next question is, what is the best way to stop it? Not to put children into high risk situations would be a good start" - Jill

Absolutely agreed Jill, but that is what individual vetting is for, not blanket discrimination against whole categories of people. Discrimination on the basis of blanket prejudice has happened against all sorts of other prospective adopters in the past based on race, class, education etc. - with the result that there were never enough adoptive parents.

(Discrimination against unmarried parents also resulted in children being semi-forcibly adopted or treated as bastards in the past. Thank God that religious orthodoxy has changed).

I also share your scepticism about some inexperienced social workers more concerned with "political correctness" than with a factual analysis of the best interests of the child and the actual merits of prospective adoptive parents. But that is what professional guidelines and supervision are for.

(I would, for instance, never want to see "quota" restrictions put in place requiring that certain proportions of adoptive children be placed with certain categories of adoptive parents).

Car insurance companies discriminate against certain categories of drivers based on perceived risk - and this can be very unfair on an individual young, inexperienced, but careful and skilful driver. An advanced driving licence issued following a more exhaustive test can certify this greater skill level, and result in fairer insurance premiums.

The adoption vetting process is a bit like granting someone an "advanced parenting licence" based on a much more exhaustive vetting process than natural parents ever go through. It is based on your actual aptitude and skills rather than on inferences based on your occupation, religion, education, class background, sexual orientation etc.

When it comes to adoption only the quality of the driving, in this case the parenting environment, should be taken into account. Adoptive children absolutely deserve to have the best possible parents and it is insufficient to allocate them on the basis that their prospective parents have the right sort of class, occupational, income, religious or racial background. Equally prospective adoptive parents shouldn’t be disqualified from even being considered because they have the “wrong” background or marital configuration.

Let the vetting process do what it is designed to do, and leave discrimination and prejudice outside the publicly funded agency doors.

If some agencies opt to go private and adopt different guidelines, that is a different matter entirely. However just because I would support a privately funded Catholic adoption agency continuing in business based on a Catholic ethos doesn’t mean we should drop all licensing requirements. After all, we wouldn’t want a paedophile ring setting up their own adoption agency under the guise of a religious organisation, and claiming a right of “conscience” to have their own and different guidelines.

[Kate]

Jean: "A gay couple IS different to a straight one. And as a fairly active member of the gay community and feel I can confirm that domestic violence is more common in homosexual relationships and that I have been confronted with more confessions of morally dubious sexual fantasies involving pre pubescents from my gay friends than from my straight ones."

Jean: This is welcome personal experience/observation and I would expand it by saying that a 'gay' male couple is "different" to a gay lesbian couple.

Some research has focused in detail on domestic violence in gay and lesbian couples, citing higher estimates of gay domestic violence to support a view of gay and lesbian relationships as inherently dysfunctional.

This combination (gay and lesbian) may not be accurate. For example, further research shows that the lifetime of physical assault among women living with female partners was 35.4%, compared to 20.4% among women living with male partners. Physical assault (male on male) in gay relationships show much lower figures.

At the same time, women living with female partners were almost three times more likely to have been victimized previously by a male (IPARV, 2002). Some of these displayed internalised aggression.

Being lesbian involves being a minority in a relationship with a member of the same sex. The same applies to homosexual men. In that sense only, gays and lesbians are similar.

While feminist theory suggests domestic violence results from male gender role-modelling and an inherent male tendency to violence, recent research contradicts that hypothesis.

If it were simply the result of male gender or roles, then the incidence of domestic violence in gay couples should be twice that of straight couples, since there are two men in gay couples. This is not presenting from evidence (Merrill and Wolfe, 2000).

Further, if it were simply the result of adhering to the male gender role, then the incidence in lesbian couples should be zero, since there are no men in lesbian couples.

Renzetti (1992) found the opposite, and that this kind of abuse was in fact most common in lesbian couples.

References and papers:
Gottman, J.M, Levenson, et al: Gay and lesbian couples' relationship satisfaction and relationship dissolution. Journal of Homosexuality, 45(1), 23-43. Also: http://www.psychpage.com/gay/library/gay_lesbian_violence

11% of women compared to 1% of men report frightening threats in intimate relationships. These occur in a range of relationships including heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/domestic-violence/

[Jill]

It seems, then, Kate, that we actually agree on most of the issues surrounding adoption. I too know individual cases where it ‘works’, for instance I know two lesbians who have very successfully brought up two children, the natural children of one of the partners – both are now adults and married. However, for every one instance like that and the one you speak of, there are likely to be others where the outcomes are not so happy. In this country it will be a number of years before the full implications can be measured and assessed. A very different picture could emerge. This is a highly risky social experiment when all the evidence points against it, and, in my view, it is an unnecessary risk.

As to ‘rights’, well, I do not think anyone has a ‘right’ to a child.

I disagree with your last paragraph, though. There are moral ‘absolutes’. Theology scholars like nothing better than analysing Biblical texts, but I am immediately suspicious when they start ‘reinterpreting’ them to fit in with the politics of the day. That doesn’t mean we cannot be compassionate and caring for people who don’t fit within the norm, and most people are quite happy to accept same-sex attracted people on the same basis as everybody else; that is until their demanded rights start impinging on ours, and where theirs are given preference and ours are overturned. Then I think we get pushed into the territory of how you define ‘orientation’, especially when many gay and lesbian people have been married, or go on to marry. And then there is the slippery slope argument of if you do accept ‘orientation’, how can you deny adulterers, rapists and paedophiles their ‘orientation’? (Oh yes, paedophiles definitely think they have one!) There is no DNA, no ‘proof’. It’s a very dodgy area, and people are frightened to go there because of the waving of the big stick ‘homophobia’.

I have no qualifications in this field like you, but I can read, and I do, quite prolifically. A little while ago I delved into the realms of a support group for men who had been sexually abused as children, and how they had managed to survive. A few had gone on to lead relatively normal lives, some self-identified as gay, many suffered severe trauma and had suicidal ideation all their lives. It was totally harrowing. The one that got to me most was the man who said he thought his adult abuser saw something in him which made him only worthy of being abused. Child abuse is dreadful, it ruins people’s lives and clouds their whole self-worth. The next question is, what is the best way to stop it? Not to put children into high risk situations would be a good start.

[Jill]

Jean! Thank God! Sanity at last! I personally KNOW that there are people in your position who simply are not interested in the aggression of the homosexualist mafia, (most of whom seem to be in our government and liberal media) but just try saying so on blogs such as this! Anyone would think I was advocating gassing of all gay people judging from the hostility I have received. I have posted the testimony of my favourite highly intelligent and articulate gay blogger in the past, and even what he had to say was greeted with ridicule and scorn. (He is opposed to CPs and gay adoptions.) For anyone interested, his comments are here: http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/12/dreadqueries-gay-adoption.html (scroll down a little) and http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2004/09/gay-marriage.html (not for the fainthearted!)

As can be seen from the case of the gay hotelier who was worried that the SORs would prevent him from running his gay hotel, not every gay person wants this legislation. I would posit that most don’t, and just want to be treated fairly and not discriminated against – surely what most of us want – but I do not think that CPs which ape marriage, or SORs, are the right way to go. Financial discrepancies could have been sorted out by tweaking existing legislation. I think the current situation over adoption – a bridge too far, in most people’s eyes - is merely going to provoke an anti-gay backlash, and I also think that marriage has now effectively been put under threat. We are already seeing a rise in interest in polygamous arrangements now that the one man/one woman model is no longer considered the norm. What makes it so ludicrous is that hardly anybody really actually wants gay adoption – hardly any gay people, and hardly any heterosexual people.

To answer Mike Homfray’s comment, I have never posted, here or anywhere else, that I think homosexuals are paedophiles. Homosexuals are homosexual, paedophiles are paedophiles. However, there IS a link between homosexuality and paedophilia, considerably more so than between heterosexuality and paedophilia. This is not something I am making up myself, it is well-documented. There are various shades of grey in the area of pederasty/ephebophilia, and confusion arises due to the age of consent being far higher than the actual age of puberty, thus homosexual sex abuse is often wrongly referred to as paedophilia, as in the RC Church, where nearly 90% of the sex abuse scandals were on post-pubescent boys who were technically under the age of consent. It is the gay lobby that is pressing for the age of consent to be reduced to 14.

The whole concept of gay adoption has necessitated the shining of torches into places where many gay people would prefer them not to be shone. This is crucial when children’s lives are at stake. It is no use getting outraged when people like me point out that two predatory paedophiles can easily form a CP to gain easy access to children. It is simply not true to say that I am accusing gay people of being paedophiles. That is just mudslinging. These factors have to be brought out into the open if we are to protect our children. The whole point of my posting the Islington Care Home scandal details was to point out just how easy it is for manipulative and devious men to infiltrate places run by the politically-correct full of ideological zeal. I also have first-hand experience of this. (This has just reminded me of an incident a few years back when one of the mothers at my daughter’s school successfully adopted a Romanian orphan following the fall of the Ceausescu regime. This mature mother of three was instructed by a young whippersnapper social worker to be sure to keep her new daughter fully informed about her past. The mother’s snappy retort was ‘okay, then, I’ll starve her and tie her into her cot and leave her there all day, lying in her own excrement and urine.’ Just an aside! But really, they do have these mantras that they feel obliged to repeat at you ad nauseam. How patronising!) I expect that’s upset just about every social worker in the country, but no, I do think most of them do an excellent job, in spite of what I have said! But common sense does sometimes seem to fly out of the window when political correctness is instilled.

[Christopher]

Alice you just have to read what he said about gay people being worse than dogs to realise the man is a hate-monger. If you think that is being 'biblical', so be it, it makes you as homophobic as he is. Don't quote the Bible at us; it is quite simply WRONG on this, as on so much else. According to the traditional interpetation held for centuries, Noah's cursing of Ham's son Canaan because Ham saw his father drunk and naked justified your race being treated as slaves. Is that 'biblical' enough for you?

[Kate]

Alice C. Linsley: "Kate, your irrational attempts to paint Archbishop Akinola as another Iddi Amin aren't working. Do the research."

Dear Alice

Au contraire. My perspective is totally RATIONAL and that, I would suggest is your objection to it.

RESEARCH confined to interpretation of ONE, 2000 year old text, is NOT research in any historical, sociological, philosophical, psychological sense. What you advocate requires a totality of 'belief' which ignores 2000 years of evolution.

The Bible is still undergoing investigation and revision by Christian and Jewish theologians.

On the other hand, historical record, evidence of African genocide, tribalism, slavery, cruelty and corrupt self-aggrandisement is well documented

It could be argued that human nature is the cause, and that anyone finding themselves in the position of absolute power, could potentially behave in the same way.

A Darwinian analysis might suggest that there is something inherent in the genetic make up of African people that predisposes them to act in such a way.

Alternatively, a gender analysis might suggest that men are predisposed to aggression, and that any man in the position of the African dictators could potentially behave in the same way.

To date, there is only historical fact i.e. a proclivity towards absolute power on the part of African males who find themselves in positions of 'authority'.

In threatening the authority of Canterbury, in presenting as an omnipotent leader of orthodox Anglicanism, Akinola matches all the well-documented historical and psychological profiles of African dictators.

Without prejudice
Kate

[Alice C. Linsley]

I too applaud Jill. The psychiatric community accepted A. Kinsey's research as proof that homosexuality is normal, but Kinsey, as a bi-sexual who photographed naked children in his attic and encouraged his wife to have affairs, was hardly an unbiased researcher.

[Frank Schnittger]

Jean - it is for Christians and Catholics to determine what they believe and what doctrines they regard as "orthodox" or correct - and for taxpayers to determine, through parliament, how they want their taxpayers money to be spent. (Render onto Caesar what is Caesars etc.)

The problem with religious adoption agencies is that they are run in accordance with religious doctrines, but are funded by the general taxpayer.

Political "orthodoxy", for want of a better term, is that all should be equal before the law and entitled to the same benefits and reliefs. On this basis a homosexual couple should be as entitled to present themselves for vetting as potential or prospective adoptive parents as anyone else.

As Kate and (Jill) have said, this is a long and intrusive process and many good potential adoptive parents have been rejected on the basis of various prejudices in the past - so much so, that there has always been a shortage of adoptive parents deemed suitable.

Equally, it sometimes happens that an "ideal" prospective adoptive family, which ticks all the right boxes, turns out to be rather less than ideal, and what at first sight might have seemed an unorthodox placement, turns out to have been very successful.

Vetting potential adoptive couples is not an exact science, and mistakes can be made, but it is important that the rights of prospective adoptive parents should also be respected by the process. And that is simply and solely to be considered on their own merits, rather than based on some preconceived prejudice against homosexuals, tradesmen, blacks, Jews, Irish, non-Christians - etc. etc. etc. Ultimately, the placement decision has to be made entirely in the best interests of the child, but only after all applicants have been fairly considered.

This is what you might call the Democratic Equality Principle.

However, there is also another principle at work within democratic societies, which for want of a better term I will call the Pluralist Principle. This holds that in any society there will always be a variety people of different races, religions, political views, economic circumstances and sexual orientation. And insofar as is reasonably possible (within the constraints of the Democratic Equality Principle) these differences should be tolerated and respected.

Thus there is no bar against Catholics or Christians or Moslems believing what they want and running their Church and Church agencies in accordance with those beliefs subject only to the general laws of the land re: incitement etc. The difficulty, in this case, is that the Catholic adoption agencies are largely state funded and it is therefore for the Government, as representative of the taxpayers, to determine how such state funded agencies should work.

A seeming contradiction arises where the vast majority of British citizens describe themselves as Christians, and yet vote for parties which, with the exception of Northern Ireland’s DUP, support the general principle that there should be no discrimination on the basis of Sexual Orientation. Perhaps this is a temporary phenomenon, and as a result of this controversy there could be a huge upsurge in democratic support for parties which do. We shall see. However at the present time the political “orthodoxy” of no discrimination on the basis of Sexual orientation remains in place.

Lets us also be clear – as Kate has also said – that we are talking here of discrimination which takes place prior to any vetting process, which is itself, of course a very selective process at an individual level rather than at the level of disqualifying a whole category of people.

You may very well be right. Very few same sex couples may represent the best option for any child and end up being successful in their application. Each child’s circumstances are unique, and what may in general be true is not necessarily always so. In any case political orthodoxy and the Democratic Equality Principle. holds that same sex couples have a right to be considered and vetted in the same way as everyone else. If the Catholic Church wishes to depart from this principle under the Pluralist Principle, it must do so privately, and not expect all taxpayers, through the State to fund the process.

Let us also remember that, even for Christians, heterosexual marriage is an ideal which is often more honoured in the breach. If we had no marital breakdown, no divorce, no child abuse, no abandoned children, there would hardly be any need for adoption or fostering at all. Indeed if procreation was only allowed within Christian Marriage – as orthodox Christians believe – and if the state enforced this prohibition, then there would be no non-Christian children at all!

Can you imagine it – a Christian country where no one other than orthodox married Christians couples were allowed to have children – and all others were forcibly adopted? We were pretty close to that in Ireland not so long ago, and we don’t want to go there again do we? That is not to say it is not a valid ideal for Christians to hold. Unfortunately the law, and the state, has to deal with the sordid reality where no one ideal holds supreme, and where there are, in any case, many departures from the ideal.

It is not so long ago that the Churches considered all children born out of wedlock to be bastards with little or no rights. It’s great to see that Christian orthodoxy has changed to reflect the fact that society does not consider discrimination against children on the grounds of their parentage to be acceptable. I have no doubt that Christian orthodoxy will change again in future years to reflect the fact that society does not consider discrimination against gays to be acceptable either.

The really sad fact is that Christianity used to be in the forefront of really progressive changes in society such as the abolition of slavery. Now it has ceded that leadership role to secular groups within society and instead we see the Churches in the vanguard of reactionary forces who hark back to an idyllic society governed by a Christian moral order that never was. We had wars then, and lots of them. Europe is now largely at peace – we just have a few religious war mongers who haven’t yet got the message.

But we’ll get there.

[J Pearce]

I believe that there is a principle worth arguing here. Much as I bow to Jean's personal experiences and acknowledge them as perfectly valid points, I would like to point out that there are probably any number of other members of the gay community who would like to adopt and who are not prone to pre-pubescent fantasies. In practice, they have the means to do so, by going via non-Catholic agencies. So the pragmatic outcome of this situation is really just a storm in a teacup - its worth acknowledging that certain groups (labour MP's, the "gay" lobby) have used this situation for political ends, to…well…bash Christians (and vice versa - I've seen plenty of splenetic tirades against the "militant gay agenda" on this blog as well). When you get drawn into an argument that descends into single issues, anecdote and point scoring (as I have done), then you lose sight of the big picture.

But the abstracted principle at stake here - the big picture - is, as far as I am concerned, is the rights of the religious, to implement real discrimination against other, law-abiding members of society. On what basis are some religious people arguing that gays should not become potential adopters? "Conscience".

What is that "conscience"? In short, it is a euphemistic term to describe the belief that homosexuals are "sinners". This has been phrased in other ways - "wrong", "disordered", "abnormal". Again, these are all fairly euphemistic terms. What we are dealing with, at the very core of this issue, is a belief system which posits that homosexuals are, essentially, "sub-human". That they are not worthy of respect or dignity (and all the rights that follow from that). That they are, essentially, "unGodly" (and therefore, by extension, "evil", as some contributors have gone as far as saying). The subliminal beliefs which follow from that, are that homosexuals should not be accorded the same rights (civil and legal) as heterosexuals, on the basis that they don't deserve them, because they do not exist in the same moral continuum as Christians.

I could make plenty of - perfectly valid - references to Nazi ideology, the slave trade and other historical acts of de-humanisation that Christians are culpable for. But the bottom line is that there is no basis for this belief system, apart from a set of ancient texts. The evidence within those texts to support this belief is sporadic and flimsy at best. There are plenty of much more vituperative (and detailed) sections of the Bible which have been challenged and excised from Christian dogma. Yet the Biblical persecution of homosexuals continues to this day. Why? Homosexuality is a given. It predates the Bible. It is part of the human condition. Yet certain Christians feel compelled - even in in the light of the overwhelming evidence of the damage and inhumanity caused by other Biblical-inspired crusades against sections of the human race, throughout history - to perpetuate this inhumanity, even if they now know to dress it up in various euphemistic guises (constant references to statistics on the alleged "harmfulness" of the gay lifestyle, for example).

But in our modern, mostly secular society, is religious conviction a sound moral basis to deny a group of law-abiding citizens the same rights in society as the majority? Would we countenance denying Muslims the same legal redress as non-Muslims, even though a minority section of radicalised Islamists are prepared to take innocent human lives in the name of their religious convictions? Would we refuse Jewish couples the right to adopt, based on their non-Christian beliefs?

Obviously not - and we don't. Religious conviction is no more or less a human condition than homosexuality, but we have laws in place to protect the religious against actual discrimination, based on their beliefs. The core of this argument, I believe, is whether we believe it is acceptable in our modern society, to be able to allow one minority to be able to practice real and potentially damaging discrimination against another, law-abiding minority - on the basis that their belief system classes that minority as, essentially, "less than human"? No-one is arguing against religious conscience on the basis that the religious are morally inferior, "sub-humans" (despite appearances…). But that is precisely the basis on which certain sections of the religious are arguing against homosexuals, including many on this blog.

This is surely unacceptable in modern society. Those that argue that religious conviction should supercede the laws of this land are essentially arguing for a theocracy. To me, that is the same kind of totalitarianism that many Christian objectors have been comparing the present government to. But I can vote out the present government. I can exercise that choice. I can't vote out the Church - and the Church still has real power, which affects millions of lives daily. I cannot vote out the proponents of some of its more repellent, anti-human ideology, despite the fact that their agenda's can (and will) have a real, detrimental effect on my life. Which is why I believe that religious oppression - in whatever subtle guises it takes - must be challenged.

[Jean]

Oh and I'd like to applaud Jill for being so level headed and informed.

[Alice C. Linsley]

Kate, your irrational attempts to paint Archbishop Akinola as another Iddi Amin aren't working. Do the research.

[Jean]

As a completely irreligious, agnostic, liberal, lesbian who is of Jewish blood I find the prevailing anti-Catholic attitude present throughout much of this thread very disturbing and the accompanying attitude that the sexual orientation of one minority deserves more 'tolerance' and favourable laws than another's sacred religious beliefs an insult to my British heritage. Some of the comments have shown nothing but religious hatred against Christians. It sends a chill down my spine. If similar things were said of Muslims or gays..well, they probably wouldn't have even been approved. This has confirmed my view that secularist/atheist/so called liberals are often more spiteful and intolerant than they claim the Christians (as it usually is that particular religion they pick on) are.

In choosing a homosexual lifestyle I accept that I have given up any 'right' (as if there is one) to have children and that it would be unfair to force any child - not given the choice - into a 'family' that deliberatly deprives them from experiencing a parental relationship with both sexes. We simply couldn't offer the child a proper father figure. There is a natural order of such things, a natural order that has stood the test of time and makes perfect biological and psychological sense. It is an order that I believe most people in this country concede is the most appropriate and effective in regards of raising children to be balanced individuals. One that cannot be changed or even properly challeged no matter how much the head_in_the_clouds lobby stamp their feet and scream "BIGOT". And if my girlfriend and I really had our hearts set on adopting, for us to specifically go to a Catholic adoption agency as a gay couple would be as disrespectful as showing up at my local kosher butcher and ordering pork chops. But I doubt the government are planning legislation to outlaw the discrimination of sausage lovers.

As proud as I am of my sexuality and relationship with my girlfriend one thing I cannot claim is that it would be an appropriate environment for an already damaged child to grow up in. A gay couple IS different to a straight one. And as a fairly active member of the gay community and feel I can confirm that domestic violence is more common in homosexual relationships and that I have been confronted with more confessions of morally dubious sexual fantasies involving pre pubescents from my gay friends than from my straight ones. Whether this means gays are just more open than straights I'm not sure but it certainly gives me food for thought.

We reap what we sow, to compromise a child's upbringing and undermine tradition for the sake of a fashionable view would be most unjust. And to expect - no - FORCE followers of any faith to facilitate a situation they deem as blasphemous is religious persecution and most illiberal.

They're doing a fine job, leave them be. Not everyone has to believe the same as you, the Christians accept this and the agencies have been compromising somewhat, why can't you?

Homosexually, thankfully, has been pretty much tolerated in this country but if we're to continually push this kind of legislation and invent - in essence - thought crimes, we are in danger of the making the pendulum swing sharply the other way. In fact, I almost hope it does go back some. Just to prove that the British public will not take this lying down and be told what to think by such pompous pseudo-lefties. That would restore my faith in them.

[Tom Jackson]

"Stick your obnoxious opinions and beliefs where the sun don't shine."

After a few days away, it has been interesting to catch up on the developments where this issue is concerned.

Resorting to personal abuse, J Pearce, is a sure sign that your argument is weak and failing and a sad reflection on you personally - but, I am sure, not a representative character trait of those you attempt to represent. You're not really Jade Goody in disguise, are you?

This issue has developed, not into a case for adopting those children desperately in need of a loving, caring and secure family and home but into a political argument to bring homosexuality into some form of normality. And that is understandable, of course; no-one likes to be on the periphery of a community, feeling different.

I support a view that has been widely expressed in the media over the past few days; there are many ways in which suitable homosexual partners can adopt a child through agencies that do not have the moral and social objections organisations such as the Catholic Church adhere to.

Why then is it so important that legislation is forced through that removes the freedom of the Catholic Church to refuse any applications from homosexuals?

Well, not to reduce the number of children awaiting adoption, that's for sure! I suspect, as previously pointed out, to "normalise" homosexuality, to bring some sense of acceptability to same-sex relationships would appear to be the overriding motivation.

The tactic is to put a "spin" on this issue that directs attention away from the main and long-term objectives of the homosexual community by suggesting that any opposition to the legislation represents an unwillingness to see orphaned or deprived children given a better opportunity in life.

"Allowing and encouraging gay couples to adopt can only be a good thing, if it means the potential list of adoptive families increases - the more families there are to adopt, the less children there are in the social care system. Its simple maths, isn't it?"

Now, that is a prime example of such "spin".

And last time I looked, J Pearce, those of us "demented orthodox Christians" supposedly full of "fatuous, pointless homophobic bullsh*t", still live in a free and democratic country where we are allowed to hold and express any religious beliefs and opinions we have chosen and to follow our conscience.

If the extent of your intellect is to continue calling us names and attempting to verbally bully us into submission, so be it; as Shilpa Shetty so ably demonstrated, foul-mouthed bullies rarely succeed in the end! (Just a little bit of my own personal abuse there!)

[J Pearce]

"J Pearce, after all the names I have been called on this blog, a witch is pretty tame, I can tell you."

Oh dear, not a very good start - if you understood the reference, you would realise I wasn't comparing you to a witch (the persecuted), I was comparing you to their Christian persecutors...

"You will not find one scrap of evidence in my posts that I think homosexuals are paedophiles, so it is you who is spreading fear and disinformation."

Really? So why inevitably mention paedophilia whenever you enter into a discussion about homosexuality? You don't have to be a scientist to see your pernicious attempts at linking the two - and I'm hardly the first person to point this out to you, either, am I?

"And I await with interest some honest and peer-related research from you that proves that unfettered sexual activity is beneficial to society."

To borrow one of your phrases Jill, "you will not find one scrap of evidence in my posts that posits that unfettered sexual activity is beneficial to society". What I understand is, that humans are sexual beings as well loving beings, therefore your cloud-cuckoo land conceit that sex should be confined to marriage (and that would be Christian marriage only, because you childishly refuse to acknowledge the worth of any other form of partnership) is, in a practical sense, completely unworkable. Your utopian yearning for this mythical time of perfectly married couples and chaste singletons has never happened in the history of mankind, and never will - despite the best efforts of dictatorial religious totalitarians everywhere.

The best we can do is what is already being done - educate and inform people about the potential consequences of their actions. If they choose to ignore that, then that decision is up to them and they must live the potential consequnces. Its called empowering people to make their own decisions in life, through education. And an educated, empowered individual is something that scares the living daylights out of you, isn't it Jill? Because they might actually work out for themselves what a sham your orthodox beliefs are.

[Mike Homfray]

Jill ; why, then, do you regularly post lots of messages on the message board of Anglican Mainstream where you state regularly the links you claim between 'homosexuals' and paedophilia?

It is faintly amusing to see conservative Christians trying to claim the benefits of enlightenment for themselves. Frankly, the sooner the church sticks to its own temples of prejudices and gets out of everyone else's life , the better - and with the collapse in church attendance and the church viewed ever more as a fringe group of slightly deranged bigots, that day gets sooner all the time

[Kate]

Jill: How nice to be directly addressed by you! In answering your question: "Okay, Kate, in view of your shelves full of literature on the subject, which I am assuming you have read, what is your view of gay adoption?"; I need to slice a few onions.

First: reference to 'shelves full ...' meant psychological literature - not 'gay adoption' - but certainly contradictory research on homosexuality and many other things. I'd deserve to be out of a job if I didn't keep up.

Next, the term 'gay adoption' forms a conjunction which implies meaning but is, in reality meaningless. We need to question the implications.

It is a universal fact that denigration and discimination whether on grounds of colour, race, religion, class or sexual prejudice humiliates, de-humanises and breeds reaction.

Discrimination and inequality under the law led to 30 years of violence where I come from. I am therefore implacable in my belief that ALL law-abiding citizens in a democratic society are entitled to EQUAL civil rights.

That does not and should not, ever impinge on the welfare the child being paramount. I am NOT of the opinion that just ANY adult has an automatic RIGHT to adopt.

I DO believe that ANY adult has the RIGHT to present him/herself for interrogation as a prospective adopter.

The topic has been de-railed by obfuscation and hysteria; instead of children's well-being, it has focussed on conflicting Christian perceptions of 'sin', freedom of 'conscience' and interpretation of biblical text.

Children's welfare should ALWAYS be the priority. In my personal experience, the process of adoption is long, often personally intrusive, and very rigorous whatever the couples religious affiliation or none.

I do not believe that ALL married couples, whether Christian or anything else, are suitable adopters. I have worked with deeply traumatised people who were placed with the overt 'ideal'.

I do not believe that ALL homosexual couples will prove to be suitable adopters. I DO believe they have the same RIGHT to present themselves for interrogation.

Once that distinction is undertood and accepted, I would incline to Frank's meditation on the 'ideal': i.e. a stable, caring heterosexual partnership and welcoming siblings.

That said, human psychology often confounds us; I have worked with disabling 'gender confusion' (totally different from homosexuality) in people with apparently 'normal' heterosexual parents as role models.

I have also been privy to one case where a single gay man literally saved the life of a physically disabled child who was suffering horrific abuse from his birth mother.

That boy, now a man, still disabled but less so, is today married to a physically able-bodied woman. They have two children. His 'dad' babysits.

My argument throughout these debates is a simple one. There is no absolute 'truth' - only shades of grey. There are no absolutes in biblical interpretation either. Scholars, both Christian and Jewish are still working on the texts; still discussing and revising translations, never mind 'absolute' meanings.

[Frank Schnittger]

"J Pearce, after all the names I have been called on this blog, a witch is pretty tame, I can tell you. You will not find one scrap of evidence in my posts that I think homosexuals are paedophiles, so it is you who is spreading fear and disinformation." - Jill

C'mon Jill, less of the manufactured martyrdom and injured innocence. No one has called you a witch, and you have consistently argued that homosexuals have a greater propensity to be paedophiles - and on that basis alone are unsuited to be allowed to foster or adopt.

You are quite right that "our Judeo-Christian tradition [that] has fostered many of the human rights and liberal values we take for granted today", but that is precisely the tradition you are seeking to depart from by seeking to brand all homosexuals as unsuitable for parenthood, and to debar them from consideration or vetting as potential adoptive parents on the grounds that some of them may be paedophiles.

[Jill]

Okay, Kate, in view of your shelves full of literature on the subject, which I am assuming you have read, what is your view of gay adoption? Assuming, that is, that we are starting from the same premise, viz that adoption has nothing to do with the 'rights' of adults but is solely concerned with what is best for children?

J Pearce, after all the names I have been called on this blog, a witch is pretty tame, I can tell you. You will not find one scrap of evidence in my posts that I think homosexuals are paedophiles, so it is you who is spreading fear and disinformation.

What you have to remember is that it is our Judeo-Christian tradition that has fostered many of the human rights and liberal values we take for granted today, such as education for the poor and indeed adoption. The state has gradually taken over a share of the responsibility, but with the typical repression and intolerance of the present administration now wants to boot out the remaining vestiges of Christian input. The biggest losers in all this in the case of adoption will be the children, so spare us your pious open-mindedness.

And I await with interest some honest and peer-related research from you that proves that unfettered sexual activity is beneficial to society. I have merely set out the traditional Christian stance on marriage, that is all. Sneer if you like, but the old-fashioned concept of sex being confined to within marriage is the one that works best to everybody’s advantage, for individual families and for society generally.

[Kate]

Alice C linsley:"Obviously, I agree with the Archbishop ..."

Well Yes! Obviously YOU do. That is an OPINION. However do you have any RATIONAL argument, any verifiable EVIDENCE for 'worship' of this man's words? Are you merely a PR mouthpiece for a dictator - a classical African over-reacher?

Please address the ISSUES in my last post.

[J Pearce]

"Oh, and J Pearce, I forgot to mention - if you read posts properly instead of jumping to conclusions, you would see that I have NOT been saying that gay men are paedophiles."

No Jill, what you have been saying is far more insidious than that. Whenever I see any reference to homosexuality in your posts, there is inevitably a reference to paedophilia. Now that several people have come down hard on you for initially extrapolating a direct link between the two, you are obviously being slightly more careful about how you phrase your opinions. Nevertheless, it still remains extremely obvious that you are unable - and clearly, totally unwilling - to separate the link that exists in your mind, that all homosexuals are, or at least potentially are, paedophiles.

Furthermore, you continue to use this medium to disseminate this view. It is anti-homosexual propoganda, any which way you try to cut it.

At this point, you would no doubt accuse me of doing the same to Christians. And I would say - absolutely! I have no embarrasment about it whatsoever. The reason for this is simple - for a very long time, Christians have enjoyed a privileged position in our society. To this day, the (unelected) Church uses its political power as leverage to fend off legislation which would, or could, have the effect of reducing its power base or its influence. Two recent examples would be Church school admissions quotas and, of course, the reaction to the SOR's - and I'm sure Alistair has a whole raft of other examples. The Anglican Church is literally part of the Establishment and has power of veto over British law making, thanks to its unelected membership in the Lords.

So when it comes to the rights of a law abiding minority that currently, do not have parity of legal status in this country to the majority - that majority including the religious, who are prepared to use their privileged position to try and blackmail the democratically legitimated government of the day into maintaining the status quo in favour of the them - then I see no problem whatever in arguing to "level the playing field". If this makes me, in your terms, "Christianophobic" (sh'yeah, right, whatever…) - then so be it.

"So J Pearce, you are out on a limb on this one."

I enjoy being out on a limb. I prefer to maintain a relatively open mind - even if it puts me at odds with "the masses" - rather than blind obesiance to a religious dogma. For the record, I do not align myself with what you call the "militant homosexualist agenda" (and what is that, exactly?) and I do not support lobbying which panders to the self-interest of one minority group. My viewpoint is what you would vaguely call humanist, in that it acknowledges that homosexuals are no different to anyone else, except through their sexual orientation. They have the same vices and virtues, strengths and weaknesses, the same common humanity as heterosexuals.

This means that I can see that it is logical that they should be given the same legal rights as the majority. This includes the right not to have actual discrimination practiced against them. You, Jill, however, are clearly pursuing an anti-homosexual agenda (in fact, it seems to be an anti-everyone-who-isn't-married-and-Christian-agenda). You are prepared to search for and use any anecdotal or statistical evidence, regardless of its veracity, to support your unswerving observations on what is "right" and "wrong" and to bolster your thesis that all homosexuals are inclined to paedophilia.

Your modus operandi is to spread fear and mistrust. By doing so, you are culpable of stigmatising, marginalising and de-humanising a group of otherwise law-abiding citizens. By pursuing your religion-fixated agenda, you are no different to those religious acolytes who came before you, who have perpetrated anti-human crimes in the name of Jesus.

I see little difference in your beliefs, those held by Akinola and those of the good burghers of Salem...

[Alice C. Linsley]

According to The Living Church, “Peter Akinola has denied accusations that his opposition to the episcopacy of the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson is driven by revulsion of homosexual persons, saying his actions arise from the concern that false teachers are leading the Episcopal Church astray.”

“It’s all about responsibility,” Archbishop Akinola told The Living Church. “Everyone has sinned. Everyone needs to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus. If people come to the church and do not hear the message of new life, then we have not fulfilled our responsibility.”

Akinola argues, “We are not being responsible or faithful if we say, ‘Let us bless your stealing. Let us bless your adultery.’ When the church in the West says, ‘We bless your homosexual union,’ they have failed people. We should love them better than that,' He said." (Source: The Living Church, Jan. 2005)

Obviously, I agree with the Archbishop as do many people.

[Kate]

Alice C. Linsley: "What a pack of lies! But you love to tell them. ...."
You do yourself no service with immoderate idiom. You would do better to address the issues.

Akinola has been reported in a list of newspapers - yes? Reporting does not confer "spiritual authority", it simply confirms that he exists.

Indigenous Africans have presided over half a century of 'pillage and plunder' of their own people. Akinola is best friends with President Olusegun Obasanjo? Yes/No?

President Olusegun Obasanjo swept to power in 1999, promising far-reaching democratic reforms. But almost three years later, more than 10,000 people have died in communal or religious conflicts, the economy is in tatters.

His answer to the massive communal and religious unrest across the country has been to use the army to control local disturbances. Far more people have died in communal clashes during the last few years of civilian rule than under any previous military regime.

Perhaps ironically, in the light of your post, The Christian Monitor reports:

"We do not want any money from the Episcopal Church of the United States," said Peter Akinola, Nigerian archbishop and chairman of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA)... "We will not, on the altar of money, mortgage our conscience, mortgage our faith, mortgage our salvation."

"Archbishop Akinola feels passionate about not being beholden to the church in the West," says the Rev. Douglas. "For them to say no to that money will cause severe financial constraints unless there are other sources ready to step into the gap."

Eight of the 12 African provinces have already accepted this year's contributions from the Episcopal Church headquarters, of which about $100,000 a year comes from the US ... It was not clear whether the African bishops want to stop the flow of aid funds from the church's humanitarian organization, which runs primary healthcare and food-security projects.

"The vast bulk of the money that comes from the United States [Episcopal Church] and goes to Africa is for feeding the hungry, tending the sick - particularly people with HIV/AIDS, and malaria - and for sheltering the homeless," says Jim Naughton, spokesman for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington.

Anglicans are more numerous in Africa than anywhere else, but are poorer there than elsewhere. Consequently, some 70 percent of CAPA's operating budget comes from the West.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0419/p07s02-woaf.html

Something along the lines of 'let them eat cake' perhaps?
Let us NOT hear any witterings about the 'shepherd starving with his sheep'. Akinola will not starve. Only the poor and destitute. His other 'buddy',

Robert Mugabe ...was a hero in the struggle for majority rule .... The land redistribution program has seen mobs of Mugabe loyalists physically removing white farmers from their land, but Mugabe has not just targeted white people.

Opposition to his regime is not tolerated, with independent media outlets, opposition parties and homosexuals being particular targets. British authorities believe Mugabe has stashed large amounts of money in foreign bank accounts.

WE as British and Irish Anglicans are no more compelled to acccept 'spiritual authority' from Akinola as we are to accept it from the local delivery man.

Please note: CANTERBURY is THE "spiritual authority" of the Anglican Communion. Akinola, if he wishes to remain an Anglican, is required to submit to that authority.

Do yourself a favour and read 'Macbeth'.

[Martin]

His Grace the Archbishop of Glasgow declared recently that if an exemption was not granted then he would campaign against Labour in the Scottish Parliamentary Elections in May. A beleaguered Labour-led coalition government which relies heavily upon its Catholic seats in western Glasgow will not relish that prospect. Hence the First Minister's plea to Ruth Kelly to take a "balanced approach". I look forward to seeing Labour regret its actions here when Archbishop Conti leads his people to the polls to vote against them. This, combined with Cardinal O'Brien's support for independence, may tell heavily against Labour in May, and may even contribute to the formation of an SNP-led coalition at Holyrood.

[Martin]

"When last I heard, a Catholic could not be British Prime Minister."

This is no longer the case. The restrictions on a Catholic becoming either PM or Lord Chancellor were removed in 1978 when it looked as if the late Labour peer Lord Rawlinson of Ewell might become Lord Chancellor. In the event, he didn't, but the possibility was enough to see the legal disability abolished.

[Frank Schnittger]

PS Christopher - I have responded to your other post on http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/01/gays_in_nigeria.html#comments

[Frank Schnittger]

Christopher, I could not have put it better myself! The very people who are screaming now about state totalitarianism will be the first to complain if the state tolerates a further encroachment of Islamic fundamentalism into the mainstream of British society.

The state has to legislate for all citizens on an equal basis. If some want special treatment they have provide and avail of it in the private sphere.

The Established Church was never much more than "the Tory Party at prayer". How on earth can it expect a Labour Government (new or old) to legislate special privileges for it and its allies - when even the Tories have deserted it in sheer embarrassment?

This loss of secular power seems to have come as a shock to some. Where on earth have they been for the past 50 years? The rantings of the Bishopcracy are an embarrassment to anyone who has had to live in the real world of Northern Ireland, child sex abuse, and the rise of social democracy.

The established Churches have contributed so little to the creation of the modern world of human rights, social provision, democracy, equality, and the banishment of religious wars and sectarian strife – it is absolutely amazing that they can be so shameless as to continue to expect a privileged place in our society.

But some people have no shame, no respect for children, and no reverence for God. Otherwise they wouldn’t be bandying His Name about so freely in defence of their own narrow self interest.

As Ekklesia says, instead of resisting change, the churches need to take a positive attitude to what the Cardinal described today as a 'loss of power', since this gives them an opportunity to recover the dynamic of the Christian message as an identification with those at the margins of society."

[Christopher]

Further to my answer to Frank, the think-tank Ekklesia, commenting on cardinal Murphy O'Connor's interview on this morning's BBC Radio 4 has, among other things, said this is no longer a christian nation (Jill and Alan's 72% ?):

"The Cardinal has suggested that the Government’s refusal to allow its publicly-funded adoption agencies to refuse gay adoptees poses a threat to the voluntary work carried out by all churches. Ekklesia says this is not so.

Instead it suggests that the 'adjustment period' of 21 months creates a fresh opportunity for a 'mature and careful reconsideration on both sides of the role of the churches in relation to the government, with its responsibility to provide for all, and civil society, where there is space for a number of actors and different contributions.'

The basis of this reconsideration, says Ekklesia, needs to be an acknowledgement that Britain is not a ‘Christian country’ but a plural society in which the great majority of the population are no longer regular Christian adherents.

The churches can therefore no longer assume that their definitions of what is right will be accepted by everybody, especially when public money is going into service intended for the whole community, it says. But this is an opportunity not a threat for the churches.

The think tank points out that discrimination against lesbian and gay people has been strongly opposed by a number of Christians on theological grounds, and that the churches need to acknowledge that they do not speak with one voice.

Ekklesia says that the argument about church and government is 'deeply confused' when people ignore the crucial distinction between public provision and voluntary action.

'Reactions to the Equality Act, which most people see as a matter of consistency and fairness, hark back to the Christendom era when the action of government was based solely or largely on principles determined by the churches', commented Ekklesia co- director Simon Barrow. 'However, we are no longer in that era.'

Ekklesia argues that there is no general threat to church-based voluntary initiatives, but says that arguing against equal treatment in public services 'is bound to cause hostility towards the church, with people questioning whether it is fit to be a state recognised provider.'

The think-tank says that instead of resisting change, the churches need to take a positive attitude to what the Cardinal described today as a 'loss of power', since this gives them an opportunity to recover the dynamic of the Christian message as an identification with those at the margins of society."

[Kate]

Jill: "Christopher, I know you would dearly like Kate to be right about all things, but she is not the only psychologist around;..."

Perhaps if, as you advised J Pearce, you READ postings Jill you might remember I have, several times stated I am NOT an 'expert'. I have said, I do not KNOW EVERYTHING about ANYTHING.

Any human being who does believe they KNOW all there is to know on ANY subject needs to be 'taken with a pinch of salt'.

If YOU insist on claiming personal offence, in parading your personal altruism, family, friends and acquaintances - as evidence of your SUPERIOR knowledge, you must expect to confronted ON YOUR OWN TERMS.

By presuming you are free to express dismissive opinions on others, OF WHOM YOU CAN KNOW NOTHING, you leave yourself open for others to do precisely that to you.

It is unfortunate that this appears to be your only means of engagement.

Also, you are quite wrong in saying:
"Christopher - of course I do, just as you and Kate and others look for stuff to support your own viewpoint."

I do not wish to speak for Christopher BUT I post to BALANCE extreme opinion. I have shelves full of the stuff you report. I also have shelves full of contradictory opinion. For that reason I am obliged to highlight the bias you consistently exhibit.

[Christopher]

Hey, Ruth, while we were posting about the argy-bargy over the adoption issue look what has happened in Israel. Irene, Emanuel, why didn't you tell us about this?

"Gay couple register as married in Israel

An English immigrant to Israel has had his marriage registered by officials in Jerusalem.
Binyamin Rose and his American husband Avi have successfully registered themselves as a married couple. "

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-3597.html

[Christopher]

Frank

If the fear of encroaching shari'a law is behind the sudden 'enlightenment' of the public mind in the debate in not allowing any religious deviations from the principle of non-discrimination against people on grounds of sexual orientation - and if that fear is a reasonable one - then it must be extremely uncomfortable for those making the case for any kind of religious opt-out that by their actions they might in the longer term be bringing the United Sultanate of Great Britain and Northern Ireland nearer. In such circumstances wouldn't christians prefer to live under a secular constitution where their basic human right of freedom of worship is upheld rather than the alternative? Forget the resurgence of christendom - it's not going to happen.

[Frank Schnittger]

Patrick - I don't think the debate is about Catholicism versus anti-Catholicism, rather more between traditionalist Christians and others who do not presume to judge gays or wish to discriminate against them in the secular sphere.

Bishop Tom Wright of Durham, who has vociferously supported the Catholic Church's position, is in fact an Anglican.

You are right that the continued "Establishment" of the Church of England is an anomaly in European terms, and also the lack of a formal written constitution. However neither issue is particularly relevant to this debate.

Conservative Anglicans are as appalled at the actions of the Government as anyone else, and frequently feel that their Bishops are too caught up with the establishment to criticise the Government effectively or consistently.

The Catholic Church’s handling of the child abuse scandal is of course relevant to any debate on childcare and adoption, but you should not take it as symptomatic of a wider anti-Catholicism.

If anything, the determination by many not to allow a special religious exemption is motivated more by a fear of an encroachment by Islamic Sharia law on British life rather than by any lingering anti-Catholicism.