Catholics, Homosexuals, Discrimination & Adoption

[cjd]

One thing that strikes me here in the specific case of the Catholic church is a severe case of pot and kettle name-calling. The Catholic church has a terrible record of child abuse, not just at the individual priest level but more worryingly at the top management level. The number of cases where a priest who has abused children, been found out by his superiors, and is then sent away to repeat the abuse at another place is frightening. It doesn't exactly inspire me when their leaders say they want the right thing for the children.

agreed - they should keep their heads down on this one and get their own house in order.

 

[Dawg]

The Catholic church has a terrible record of child abuse

Not forgetting when The Christian Brothers (a Catholic Adoption agency ?), shipped kids off to Australia, cutting off all contact with family, condoning abuse, being malignantly cruel: Yeah, with a track record like that let's do all we can to keep letting them deal with vulnerable kids. Or not.

( And if this comes across as bigotry against men in dresses; it is).

 

[Arhiann]

Homosexuality isn't new. I believe you mean openly gay relationships are relatively new (relative in the sense that they weren't allowed, legally or morally, for the previous two/three hundred years. They weren't necessarily outlawed before that time). So, either homosexuality didn't exist for a couple of centuries or homosexuals lived as "normal" people, unable to live in openly gay relationships, but living in "normal" families. Is there any proof that those homosexuals that had kids and that lived that way were worse parents?

Well no, it's not what I meant. Historically, traditionally, (and I concede) generally, homosexual couples do not raise children, quite simply because they don't often make them.

The point is, is that there is an accepted way of doing things that produces acceptable results. In the last 20 years or so the family dynamic has changed quite a bit and arguably the results aren't as acceptable. I'm not lumping same sex relationships in there, but I don't think that our current societal values are viewed particlarly kindly by many other cultures. I'm digressing a bit here anyway.

You seem convinced that there is something inherently wrong (either potential or real) with gay/same-sex parents. My point, and what the law is saying, is we let ALL prospective parents undergo the same tough selection criteria. Full stop. Now, if that were the case and you are saying that you'd expect traditional male/female parent couples to "win" more adoption cases, then I could see (rightly or wrongly) your point.

I think I've clearly stated the opposite of this, and several times. Whilst both may potentially be as good as each other, they are as good as each in different ways. Different parental influences have to result in a difference in the child. Whether it's good or bad though hasn't been researched well enough, and we really shouldn't be messing with children's lives.

It may well transpire that if we hand over the responsibility of childcare to same sex parents, that world peace is achieved and we never produce a serial killer again. Something considerably less pleasant may come out in the wash too. It has already been confirmed that the result of a same sex parental upbringing is different to that of a mixed sex parental upbringing.

The question is whether different is good or bad, or more correctly whether this kind of different is good or bad. There is no definitive answer to this currently.

On the issue of the Catholic Church, the less said the better. It's predictable what they will eventually decide. They are far from being above reproach though.

 

[Cornish Steve]

The argument of the Church is trite, and they're almost certainly responsible for most of the twisted views society have of the incredibly complicated subject of human sexuality; I think most people can quite easily dismiss the view of the Church.

Of course they can. In our relativistic and pleuralistic society, we can dismiss anything. Just don't discriminate against it. That's just what the government is doing. If they want to allow gay parents to adopt, there are plenty of other adoption agencies that will make it possible.

There are some fundamental points at issue:

1) The government must never be allowed to force people or organisations to violate their conscience.

2) Tolerance does not mean forced acceptance at the point of law.

3) Governments are never the authority when it comes to morality.

I agree with Barrie on many points. Discrimination works against many groups, and it's never fair.

 

To dismiss the churches 'views' on this is discriminating in itself. You are basically saying that what ever the church says or does ...ignore that. Hmmm.
Everyone seems to be rounding on the Catholic church as they are the ones in the firing line here but I think if you ask around at other churches you should (and I stress should) find the same stance.
Personally, I don't believe in gay couples adopting children etc from the Biblical standpoint and from the just plain wrong standpoint. As for those who are gay, I have no problems with that. If they are gay then that is their choice, God gave us all free will to choose, however that does not and will not stop me from stating what the Bible says about the 'act' of homosexuality in that it is wrong. I love gay people as much as hetrosexual people, just as Jesus does.

 

Incidentally , abortion is 'accepted', some crazy tax laws etc are accepted but that does not make them morally right just because they are law.
If I joined the Police and decided I wanted to wear a yellow uniform instead of the blue one do you think they would let me, just in case they are sued for discrimination. No, they wouldn't. Why, because as an organisation / institution they have a set of rules or guidelines. If it came down to the government forcing the Catholic church to accept gay couples then I think they would rather shut down than conform to something that goes against their rules/ guidelines.

 

[Arhiann]

To dismiss the churches 'views' on this is discriminating in itself. You are basically saying that what ever the church says or does ...ignore that. Hmmm.

What is it with people quoting out of context. I'm talking about one fairly fundamental point of view. There is a lot of sense talked by the Church in other areas, but sexuaility is one area where it talks very little sense.

Everyone seems to be rounding on the Catholic church as they are the ones in the firing line here but I think if you ask around at other churches you should (and I stress should) find the same stance.

Well yes, the Anglican Church have supported their stance. It would be a bit daft to list all of the churches that support it though wouldn't it now. Since the thread lists the Catholics as the subject matter, it's only right we're discussing it now.

 

Fair comments although I think the Bible talks alot of sense regarding the roles of males and females but then I would say that

 

[cjd]

There are some fundamental points at issue:

1) The government must never be allowed to force people or organisations to violate their conscience.

Even when those views are totally whacky and would involve public harm; like female circumcision and widow burning?

In this case their 'conscience' (for conscience, read political posturing) will harm children. They could find ways of dealing with this that doesn't involve putting themselves outside the law if they wanted to - as they have done in San Fransisco.

2) Tolerance does not mean forced acceptance at the point of law.

Sometimes, when it is extreme, it does. (Tell that to fox hunters)

But it's not necessary in this case. The goverment is not asking anyone to change their mind about their beliefs or preventing them preaching their prehistoric notions of sexuality. It is merely saying that if they wish to receive public funding for their agencies they must not disciminate against homosexuals.

3) Governments are never the authority when it comes to morality.

Yikes - you've been in the States far too long. You'll be telling me next that god makes morality

 

[Arhiann]

Sometimes, when it is extreme, it does. (Tell that to fox hunters)

Not at all related to the discussion, but what do you reckon to halal slaughter?

R

 

[Cornish Steve]

Even when those views are totally whacky and would involve public harm; like female circumcision and widow burning?

Now come on! Let's not use hyperbole because we can both think of obvious exceptions. We're talking about matters that, if the Catholic church is granted an exemption, would hurt no one at all.

In this case their 'conscience' (for conscience, read political posturing) will harm children.

Neither you nor I work in this industry. Let's recall the words of someone who does:

What we have now is a government bringing in a law that will create absolute chaos in the social system. Catholic, and Christian agencies make up a huge part of all the social services we have in this country. If they all pulled out or were excluded there would be absolute chaos. One big problem with adoption and fostering is the lack of ethnic and especially muslim families willing to come forward. With the muslim theology being even more 'conservative' towards homosexuality the government are storing up trouble for the future....I'm a foster carer and I have experienced first hand the imposition of political correctness within the social services system and how it seeks to exclude those who do not toe the orthodox socialist view. Let slip that you may not agree with celebrating diversity in all it's forms and you won't make the grade.

They could find ways of dealing with this that doesn't involve putting themselves outside the law if they wanted to - as they have done in San Fransisco.

But this isn't needed. 94 percent of adoption agencies can still place children with gay couples even if the Catholic church does not. We're not talking about banning a practice; we're talking about the government FORCING its morality on Catholics and FORCING individuals to violate their conscience. For this, the government should be ashamed of itself.

But it's not necessary in this case. The goverment is not asking anyone to change their mind about their beliefs

You're right. They're not asking anything; they're telling. Worse, they're trying to enforce this by law. If anything is immoral in this debate, this is it. It violates basic human rights.

 

I think Mr Halal should be clobbered with a wet trout...... who is he anyhow ??

 

[cjd]

Not at all related to the discussion, but what do you reckon to halal slaughter?

R

Actually that is related to the discussion. Halal slaughter is a religious exemption of a UK law. (Which is all this debate is actually about).

If anything I'd say it's a bit harder to argue that they should be exempt than Catholic adoption agencies should. I bet if they wanted to get an exemption starting today they wouldn't tho'. (Timing is everything in politics)

 

[cjd]

Now come on! Let's not use hyperbole because we can both think of obvious exceptions. We're talking about matters that, if the Catholic church is granted an exemption, would hurt no one at all.

This is a law, voted in by a democratically elected middle of the road Western government.

Why should a minority sect be exempt from it simply because they hold daft beliefs about sex? And then, why would a so called christian organisation deliberately harm children simply because they hold those beliefs? Does their bonkers view about sex trump the need to help these children?

Nah, they're playing brinkmanship and I reckon they're about to lose.

 

Is not about views on sex, it's about obeying the word of God. Fair enough the Catholic church is way off the mark on a lot of things but in this case they are correct in their stance IMO.

 

[Chris H]

I certainly don't believe that this government is middle of the road. Change effected in this manner is going to hurt so many people, including the children. The Christian community in this country is just so intertwined with the social services system. Think of all the agencies and organisations to do with social care. How many have a Christian heritage? Most of them.

We have a government that wants to bring in social change to for a number of reasons. But in their desperation they are willing to cause untold chaos. Christians in this country have been involved in social services for hundreds of years, our social welfare system grew out of a judeo-christian heritage and view. Why is a view that has been held for over two thousand years suddenly seen as unacceptable?

This is militant fundamental secularism at its ugliest. The buzzword of tolerance seems to have disappeared from view now that those espousing tolerance are dominant in the legislature of this country.

This is just so sad.

 

[Ozzy]

Is not about views on sex, it's about obeying the word of God. Fair enough the Catholic church is way off the mark on a lot of things but in this case they are correct in their stance IMO.

You clearly follow the church beliefs which you are perfectly entitled to do, and I do respect your belief. Personally I do not agree with it, but that does not mean we cannot be friends and agree to disagree.
That is an important point behind this discussion, and one which the government is screwing up on, and is a whole can of worms. There are many different religions in this country, with many different beliefs about the way things should be done.

In China they celebrate the festive dates of every religion where they have residents who follow that religion, and they have a respect there for each others religions. In this country we haev religions fighting eat other and the government poking their nose in to try and make it illegal to do this and that because of descrimination.

We should respect each others beliefs, opinions, sexual orientation, and general person - perhaps if the government didn't force us to have to respect this we may naturally just do so. If you psuh people to do things you get resistance, if you let them or show them the benefit in doing so then you don't.

2pc

 

Slightly off topic but just to say in terms of Christianity the is a slight issue regarding the many Christian churches or groups claiming to be Christians. A Christian is one who claims to follow Christ and as a result take sthje Bible as the word of God. If therefore we claim to be Christian and then go against the Bible, then how can we possible claim to still be Christian. The thing with Christianity is that you either believe the whole Bible or not at all. So many churches choose their own selective parts of the Bible on which to base their 'religions'. this is wrong and not how the Christian faith should operate. That is why we have so many church groups claiming to be Christians yet are in conflict with each other. Catholicism, Cof E, Jehovahs Witnesses, Methodists, Mormons, etc etc . Unless the church accepts the Bible as a whole then its validity as a Christian church is in question.

Sorry to go off topic a bit but hey there ya go ....

 

[Cornish Steve]

Am I right in assuming that the government could place adopted children with gay couples through non-Catholic agencies even if the Catholic church is granted an exception? If so, why wouldn't the government do just that? Wouldn't it be a win-win situation? Everyone meets their goals.

 

[cjd]

Is not about views on sex, it's about obeying the word of God. Fair enough the Catholic church is way off the mark on a lot of things but in this case they are correct in their stance IMO.

I'm obviously no expert on this but as I understand it the gospels (and god) had nothing much to say about same sex adoption.

And all christian religions are utterly obsessed with sex - if I had time I'd try to find out why - probably a control thing. They need to leave all that old testament, middle ages stuff behind them and get on with the real christian stuff of being nice to people whoever they are and whatever orifice they stuff their bits into.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

cjd wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think you're getting carried away with your algebra and forgetting your input assumptions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm not really interested in trying to model a possible scenario. It was you who suggested that misery can somehow be quantified by making the following statements:

cjd wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't think the volume of kids bullied and bullying changes much

I also doubt that the sum of human misery is changed much by bullying in comparison to that caused by the loss of 6% of UK adoptions
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I can't see how you can use arguments such as these without a reasonable model built on theory. Otherwise you would have to use empirical experimentation.

cjd wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bullying would only occur if the the kids brought up by gay couples live in a culture were it is seen as odd, different or even 'wrong'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How could you ensure that the child will not be brought up in such a culture, assuming, of course, that an alternative, acceptable culture or sub-culture exists in the first place?

If we assume that your statement above is correct, then you are admitting that some bullying of children with gay parents will occur. I think it's a shame that any has to occur when it is very simple to prevent it.

Sticking with your assumption, the only other alternative is to discriminate on sexuality, which is what the do-gooders are trying to avoid in the first place. That is, if the adopters are gay, then they must live within an appropriate culture, otherwise it doesn't matter where they live.

cjd wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only way to prevent that (outside of having effective school bullying proceedures) is to make it normal in our culture - ie get on and do it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Homosexuality is not "normal" in any human culture that I am aware of. (Please note (Barrie) that this is not an insult, but a fact, and that "abnormal" does not mean "wrong" or "unnatural"). If homosexuality is not normal, how can you possibly "make" gay parents normal?

Apart from forcing the majority of the population to become homosexual, I cannot see how you are going to make homosexuality the norm. If the proportion of homosexuals is 10% (as quoted by someone earlier in this thread), it is obviously not normal.

If you mean make gay parents acceptable, well, as Ozzy has pointed out, this may happen over time. But I don't think that putting lots of kids under the cosh is going to make it acceptable any sooner. First we should try to make homosexuality itself acceptable, then it might naturally follow that gay parents would be as acceptable as heterosexual parents.

Dave

 

[dagr]

...

Unless the church accepts the Bible as a whole then its validity as a Christian church is in question.
...

But surely the Bible is open to interpretation; i.e. it's not a list of formal rules, like "as defined in section 4 of page 312, and subject to paragraph 5.4.7.2b, a Christian must ....". Also, as the Bible was written at a defined period of history (and if we ignore the variations/content changes introduced by translations for the sake of argument), it must be very hard to understand, let alone obey, everything in it (e.g. the bit about clothes made of two fibres, etc.). How do you manage? (Just curious).

 

[cjd]

Am I right in assuming that the government could place adopted children with gay couples through non-Catholic agencies even if the Catholic church is granted an exception? If so, why wouldn't the government do just that? Wouldn't it be a win-win situation? Everyone meets their goals.

They can and they do but that's not the point.

"The Equality Act, due to come into effect in England, Wales and Scotland in April, outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation."

This is a liberal law which releases 10% of our population from unjust, ufair and, dare I say it, un-christian, discimination across the board.

The Catholic Church (and only the Catholic church, Muslims, Jews and other Christian sects don't seem to care) is refusing to deal with same sex couples. So it will break the law if it turns them away - simple.

The Catholic Church could easily find ways around this issue. It could have kept its head down and found nice British compromises on behalf of the kids but they have chosen to go to war over it - they deserve what they'll get.

 

[Chris H]

Am I right in assuming that the government could place adopted children with gay couples through non-Catholic agencies even if the Catholic church is granted an exception? If so, why wouldn't the government do just that? Wouldn't it be a win-win situation? Everyone meets their goals.

You are right, and that is what the catholics wanted. The adoption stuff is not the issue. The government wants to radically change our current society. Traditional christianity, faith, islam, religion etc that work out in everday living don't have such a place. If you leave your religion on the mantlepiece when you leave home then that's acceptable.

 

[Arhiann]

The Catholic Church could easily find ways around this issue. It could have kept its head down and found nice British compromises on behalf of the kids but they have chosen to go to war over it - they deserve what they'll get.

How?

I can't see there's any way that they can compromise since the legislation isn't somethng they can influence. They can either toe the line, or not. I suspect they'll choose the latter of the two.

 

[Cornish Steve]

You are right, and that is what the catholics wanted. The adoption stuff is not the issue. The government wants to radically change our current society. Traditional christianity, faith, islam, religion etc that work out in everday living don't have such a place. If you leave your religion on the mantlepiece when you leave home then that's acceptable.

Then let's wake up, fellow citizens. We've been through this cycle in previous ages. Let me quote a definition:

Totalitarianism is a term employed by political scientists to describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behaviour. Common to all definitions is the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political or religious ideology, and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state.

In other words, it's not enough that objectives can be met (i.e., 94% of adoption agencies can assign children to gay couples). No, instead the government demands 100% compliance, even though that forces caring individuals to violate their conscience.

Intelligent people in previous world regimes have been conned subtly into believing things that today we regard as outrageous. This is just another example. The government is forcing us to believe its view of the world, and we should never allow that. This is not just an interesting debate at a forum; it's our future.

 

[cjd]

How?

I can't see there's any way that they can compromise since the legislation isn't somethng they can influence. They can either toe the line, or not. I suspect they'll choose the latter of the two.

Of course they can. There will be thousands of people in the Catholic church who think that their position on this is daft, just as 90% of UK Catholics think it's position on contraception is daft - they just ignore it and get on with life in the real world.

They could staff the agencies with people who aren't as queezy as the guys in the pointy hats and long skirts. They could recruit non-catholics, or 'outsource' the virtual zero number of same sex couples who are likely to go to a Catholic adoption agency. They could easily deal with this in ways that doesn't compromise their beliefs but does the right thing by the children.

Come on, we're business people, there are a million ways around this if you want to find them. Which is exactly what the Catholic church did in California.

Truth is that's not what they want; they want a political fight, to try to force the government to exclude them from the laws of the UK.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Truth is that's not what they want; they want a political fight, to try to force the government to exclude them from the laws of the UK.

I respectfully disagree. They are remaining true to their principles. Thank God there are people still willing to do that. More often than not, those same principles lead them to actually do the hard, selfless work of helping the most needy in the world, for which the idealogues would never soil their own manicured hands.

 

[cjd]

The government is forcing us to believe its view of the world, and we should never allow that. This is not just an interesting debate at a forum; it's our future.

Haha - was it only moments ago that you accused me of hyperbole?

Couple of issues worth remembering. This government is liberal and democratic. Secondly, the Law is a liberal law to PREVENT discrimination against a minority section of society. Thirdly, the Catholic church can do whatever it likes, think whatever it likes, promote whatever it likes, preach whatever it likes.

What it can't do, under this law, is run an adoption agency using government funds that turns away gay people.

Now get your tanks off my lawn.

 

[dagr]

Then let's wake up, fellow citizens. We've been through this cycle in previous ages. Let me quote a definition:

Totalitarianism is a term employed by political scientists to describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behaviour. Common to all definitions is the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political or religious ideology, and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state.

In other words, it's not enough that objectives can be met (i.e., 94% of adoption agencies can assign children to gay couples). No, instead the government demands 100% compliance, even though that forces caring individuals to violate their conscience.

Intelligent people in previous world regimes have been conned subtly into believing things that today we regard as outrageous. This is just another example. The government is forcing us to believe its view of the world, and we should never allow that. This is not just an interesting debate at a forum; it's our future.

It's not an objective, it's a law, and as such, like all laws, I hope it would be applied indiscriminately to everyone/thing in the UK, 100%. In this case, it's a law against institutions (adoption agency organisations) who may discriminate against individuals (potential parents). If, as an individual, working for an organisation like this causes you problems of conscience, then get a new job. Or convince enough people you have a better view/solution and get the law changed in your favour.

I still think we're much better off compared to living under a religious regime.

The Catholic church is probably just smarting after having to admit they were wrong over Gallileo. Don't worry, by 2407 everything will snap into place nicely.

 

[adam]

In other words, it's not enough that objectives can be met (i.e., 94% of adoption agencies can assign children to gay couples). No, instead the government demands 100% compliance, even though that forces caring individuals to violate their conscience.

SPOT ON

This is why I am against larger and larger government. Discrimination needs to be dealt with but this was not malicious discrimination. There is no finger pointing. As I said in my point lost somewhere now on about page 5, this is about placing a child in a family with similar beliefs to it's genetic parents.

Despite a few of the "fighting responses", I have not seen anyone discriminate here even though we went off of the original point for bit which was the qeustion of should the Catholic agencies be forced to do something against their beleif and I don't think they should.

 

[cjd]

should the Catholic agencies be forced to do something against their beleif and I don't think they should.

And neither do I. And nor do they have to.

They have lots of choices. The dumb choice was to try to put themselves beyond the law.

 

[Cornish Steve]

I still think we're much better off compared to living under a religious regime.

I agree wholeheartedly. I'd never want to live under a religious regime, being told what I can and cannot do. Then again, this government is doing just that and has an ego that can't accept dissent. To me, that spells danger.

 

[Cornish Steve]

And neither do I. And nor do they have to.

They have lots of choices.

And when they choose to pull out, I hope we all understand why the government raises taxes to pay for their own dogmatic stance. Of course, they'll try to pass along the blame for that too.

 

[dagr]

... Discrimination needs to be dealt with but this was not malicious discrimination. There is no finger pointing. ...

So basically, it's OK to discriminate then. (Or at least it's OK to discriminate if it's done by "nice", do-gooding people).

Ask a gay woman or man who wants to adopt a child if they feel it's OK.

 

[Cornish Steve]

I thought that "politically correct" = "damned do-gooders". I'm losing it!

 

[Arhiann]

Of course they can. There will be thousands of people in the Catholic church who think that their position on this is daft, just as 90% of UK Catholics think it's position on contraception is daft - they just ignore it and get on with life in the real world.

They could staff the agencies with people who aren't as queezy as the guys in the pointy hats and long skirts. They could recruit non-catholics, or 'outsource' the virtual zero number of same sex couples who are likely to go to a Catholic adoption agency. They could easily deal with this in ways that doesn't compromise their beliefs but does the right thing by the children.

If you hold the belief that homosexuality is wrong you can't, since by placing children in such an environment you're placing them in a "wrong" environment. I don't quite know how Catholics consider homsexuality, in that I don't know what the official word on it is, but they do consider it to be wrong. There is phrase that applies, "Not in my name". You can't compromise a basic principle of your faith.

That is of course unless you want to molest small boys.

Come on, we're business people, there are a million ways around this if you want to find them. Which is exactly what the Catholic church did in California.

What did they do? I'm sorry I don't know.

Truth is that's not what they want; they want a political fight, to try to force the government to exclude them from the laws of the UK.

At the moment that's supposition. they'll either pick a fight by continuing as they have previously and wait for the day that they have to refuse a gay couple, or they'll shut up shop. I don't imagine they'll choose the former; cash rich organisation that they are, I don't think they'll risk any of their misappropriated funds.

 

[cjd]

And when they choose to pull out, I hope we all understand why the government raises taxes to pay for their own dogmatic stance. Of course, they'll try to pass along the blame for that too.

umm - you seem to be missing a rather big part of this argument.

The government is already funding the Catholic adoption agencies. Hence their difficulty allowing them to discriminate.

 

[dagr]

I agree wholeheartedly. I'd never want to live under a religious regime, being told what I can and cannot do. Then again, this government is doing just that and has an ego that can't accept dissent. To me, that spells danger.

I'm getting a bit confused here by other people's views here. Yes, the government is applying a new law, but it's a liberal law, opening up freedoms to some while curtailing the actions of others by "forcing" them to consider an even wider spectrum of society for the adoption process. I'm having trouble seeing the general big-picture "constraints" side of this new law.

The government is saying that you can't discriminate. For me, personally, that's a good thing. However, I can understand (though not agree) why someone may not share that view and wish to keep or even increase discrimination against some groups.

I just can't get my head around the fact that people seem to be stating that discrimination is bad, but because the Catholc church has decreed that homosexuality is "wrong", then people should be allowed to follow "their" man-made law and not the law of the land.

 

[Arhiann]

I think I'm with you there Dagr. The law is the law. I don't think an exception should be made. Discrimination laws tend to cause as many problems as they solve though. Legislation is very rarely the answer.