Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Fury at Kelly threat to gay adoptions

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 January 2007
By BRIAN BRADY AND MURDO MACLEOD
A FRESH constitutional row erupted last night after it emerged that an English Cabinet minister was preparing to force Scotland to abandon its groundbreaking law allowing gay couples to adopt children.
Communities and Local Government minister Ruth Kelly is on collision course with Labour colleagues north and south of the Border over her attempts to slap a ban on gay people adopting children from church-based adoption agencies.

MSPs took the step of allowing gay adoption barely a month ago when they passed the Adoption Act despite furious opposition from conservatives and church groups.

But Kelly, a devout Catholic, now threatens to overturn the Holyrood legislation with an amendment to her own hugely controversial proposals to outlaw sex discrimination in the business and services industry. Tony Blair is believed to be backing the proposed exemption enabling faith-based agencies to refuse to place children with gay couples.

Sources close to Kelly last night confirmed she wanted to see all elements of the Sexual Orientation (Provision of Goods and Services) Regulations applying throughout the UK, meaning they would take precedence over the Scottish Parliament's own laws.

The backlash against her proposed exemption began last night, days before she was due to drop the bombshell amendment on Cabinet colleagues.

"Whatever one thinks of the issue itself, it is clear Westminster should not be able to overrule the Scottish Parliament on a subject where MSPs have made their views perfectly clear," an SNP spokesman said. "This is another example of why we need more powers for the Scottish Parliament, to decide our own policies rather than being under Westminster."

Kelly has been deeply concerned by the widespread opposition to the new regulations, which are aimed at preventing businesses from discriminating against homosexuals. Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders have condemned the proposals, due to come into force in April, claiming they will have a damaging impact on charities and faith schools.

Catholic Church leaders warned they would prefer to shut down their seven adoption agencies - which found homes for over 200 children last year - rather than be forced to place children with gay couples.

Opponents of the legislation have also warned the rules would leave bed and breakfast owners open to legal action if they do not allow same-sex couples to share a room.

Kelly's proposal is hugely controversial as it clashes directly with the government's stated aim of stripping away the institutional prejudices that have prevented homosexuals from taking a full role in society for generations.

A source close to First Minister Jack McConnell said he was not yet aware of any plans by Westminster to legislate for Scotland on this issue. He said: "The Scottish Parliament has voted on this subject and made its will clear."

Kelly, who is a member of conservative Catholic sect Opus Dei, has already floated her views to members of the Cabinet's domestic affairs committee, which is attempting to produce a workable version of the contentious sexual orientation regulations.

She was due to send a letter outlining her plans for the exemption to Cabinet last week but, as one senior colleague explained, she "bottled it".

She is now expected to present her blueprint to colleagues on Thursday, and provoke a furious debate over the government's commitment to equal opportunities.

A spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland last night welcomed suggestions of a reprieve for the adoption agencies.

But Barbara Hudson, director of the British Association of Adoption and Fostering, said that any adoptive parent was robustly assessed, not only for the stability of their relationship, but their ability to deal with discrimination.

The full article contains 605 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 January 2007 11:46 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Gay and Lesbian issues
 
1

williamx,

delta 21/01/2007 00:28:54

So religious dogma from one faith is going to become law in the 21st century?

2

GW,

Scotland 21/01/2007 00:45:29

This is a difficult problem because people of religious persuasion have as much right to their beliefs as anyone else.

Adoption should never be a 'gay rights' battleground - adoption should always be about the best interests of the child and not the claimed 'rights' of those who may wish to adopt.

3

JG,

Fife 21/01/2007 00:52:38

#2 GW
You are right, but this has obviously been thrashed out by the parly in Scotland (whatever your opinion on it's competancy) and a law allowing such adoptions to take place (whatever your opinions on that!) has been passed. So what makes this sanctimonious prat think she knows better than everyone else?

4

walter,

21/01/2007 00:57:28

If the church finds homes for children why prevent that from happening just to appease one group of people, there are other organisations that will allow same sex couples to adopt.
This is typical of the society that we live in today they don't cater for me so I want to complain about that even though I can be catered for else where.

5

SC,

Dundee 21/01/2007 01:49:04

I'm no gay rights firebrand, but regardless of religious beliefs you shouldn't discriminate against another group if they pass all the usual adoption criteria.

Religion is a free choice, whereas sexuality is not.

Their rights are completely different - and we are on a slippery slope if start protecting peoples beliefs in law. What next, no offending unionists and members of the Labour Party?

As for the UK parliament trying to overrule Holyrood, yet more reason why we need more clearly defined powers between the two.

6

KFB,

Renfrewshire 21/01/2007 02:00:49

This is a difficult subject and I can see all sides.
However I am tired of political correctness and political and religious dogma overriding what the majority accept as the norm because it is not accepted to 'discriminate' against anything these days.

We accept a persons sexuality and right to religious beliefs but this highlights where the two shall never meet and now we have politicians south of the border interfering in our parliament.... whatever you may think of either parliament......we have lost the plot...

7

Nevyn,

Glasgow 21/01/2007 02:18:42

Ruth Kelly should keep out of Scottish Politics - our parliament debated the issue and made its decision.

The Catholic Church, of which I am a member, should think very carefully before insisting that it's adoption agencies should place children on their own terms not the Scottish Parliament's. If you accept the cash and the tax breaks from the state you can't then turn around and say we will take the benefits but not observe the laws.

As for the hysterical attitude towards the gay & lesbian community - it's about time that the Cardinal stopped supporting the white hoods and torches brigade that always seeks a new witch to burn and remembers that we are instructed by God to love our neighbours as ourselves.

8

MacCoinnich,

21/01/2007 02:31:34

I can't be bothered getting in this debate, and by the time I wake up, I'm sure there will be a further 100 posts here, but...

the Scottish Parliament did not pass a "groundbreaking law allowing gay couples to adopt children." Gay people, single or otherwise, have always been allowed to adopt children. What changed is a couple is now allowed to adopt them jointly, so that if, say, one of the pair died, the other would not automatically lose their rights. I do wish the reporting and the rhetoric on this issue would be more accurate.

9

2dogs in D.C.,

up late 21/01/2007 02:39:52

and a kids the worse for being raised in loving family how? what business do any of us have in someone elses bedroom? And yes, I live in a homophobic land, and i am a married father/grandfather....Give a chance to loving couples whosoever they are, and, like they say, "Judge not,Least ye be..."
Peace, and good mornin' to ya all.

10

www.scottwebb.co.uk,

21/01/2007 02:43:25

Onward we go toward the creation of drones and the destruction of families while making it look like the people wanted it, dam those elites are right about how stupid we are :)

11

www.scottwebb.co.uk,

21/01/2007 02:44:11

Morning 2 Dogs matey :)

12

2dogs in D.C.,

up late 21/01/2007 02:51:32

Good mornin' at you too, Mr Scottwebb. I have family members who are "gay' and so, sort of, have chips on this table. As i said, let 'em be... And,again, good morning to all :-)

13

2dogs in D.C.,

up late 21/01/2007 03:00:07

#5-Mr. SC- you are so right re: religion.v.s sexuality. It is also true that, as far as my own humble self is concenred, it's a fool who judges a race or peoples as a whole. There's so many reasons to dislike a person on personal faults. The more people I meet, the more I like me dogs..;-)

14

John M.,

21/01/2007 03:04:40

This should be no surprise as the Vatican has ordered Roman Catholic politicians to do stuff like this worldwide and that's where people like Ruth Kelly ultimately take their orders from on issues like this.

15

Mark, Las Cruces,

New Mexico, USA 21/01/2007 03:16:27

This shows you quite nicely, that Westminster still rules Scotland and the so-called Scottish parliament is justa over-sized council under their control. Why does Opus Dei, the Catholic equivalent of the freemasons, have a say in the government of Scotland? Any answers, would be welcome.

16

Rossmcl,

Edinburgh 21/01/2007 03:49:38

I'm very heartened by the reactions here. How far we have come in the last few years, in terms of commonsense and tolerance.
To GW (#2) Yes of course religious people have a right to their beliefs. No-one is disputing that. But they don't have the right to have their beliefs dictate the law for everyone else. And in particular, Westminster politicians certainly dont have a right to overturn devolved decisions.
And to Mark (#15) Well let's wait and see what happens. This story is about what Ruth Kelly wants to happen. She hasn't won yet. She may not get her way (I suspect she wont). So let's wait and see before we say this shows 'Westminster still rules Scotland.' I think you will in fact be proved wrong.

17

Mark, Las Cruces,

New Mexico, USA 21/01/2007 04:40:47

I dearly hope so.

18

scottishsponger,

Australia 21/01/2007 04:51:56

Lets all hope for the good of society, particularly any children who are up for adoption, that this raving lunatic Kelly is shut-up and her proposals are strongly defeated. Religion and politics do not sit well together and should be kept separate for that reason. No decision making should ever be made upon religious beleifs. Even more worrying is that this misguided woman is interfering in another countries politics.

19

Guga,

Rockall 21/01/2007 05:11:11

I don't agree with this law in Scotland. However, when something is decided by the Scottish parliament, the Westminster government has no right to try to overturn it.

If the English want a law based on the prejudices of a modern day inquisition (Opus Dei), then that is up to them, but they should keep out of our affairs.

The only way to stop such interference in the running of Scotland, once and for all, is by regaining our independence.

Saor Alba.

20

Eagle,

Drymen 21/01/2007 07:37:34

Ruth Kelly move is a sensible one and in touch with the wishes of the people of Scotland. It is some MSPs who are out of touch and showing prejudice against faith groups.

21

Old Roy,

Black Isle 21/01/2007 07:40:53

What consenting adults do behind closed doors is no concern to anyone but I am uneasy about child adoption by gay couples. I feel that there will be an element of conditioning which will influence the child's sexuality and will certainly be confusing as the child grows up. For the child's sake I would not allow gays to adopt children, far too many unconsidered consequences.

22

Yane,

Melbourne 21/01/2007 07:46:31

Poor Ruthie, it's just so daggy to be anti-gay.

23

bill, england,

21/01/2007 07:51:44

She still has egg on her face from when she was in charge of children's education.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5213008.stm

This Blair lot couldn't run a whelk stall never mind a country. Get rid of them.

24

AT,

Fife 21/01/2007 07:55:33

Maybe I got it wrong, but is Ruth Kelly not a British MP, there being no English parliament, and was she not born in Northern Ireland?

Sentiments still the same, nevertheless!

25

Heidegger,

Fife 21/01/2007 08:10:10

Let's on grounds of honesty or lack of it
ban all "religious" folk from participating
in public life.

26

Lachie Mor,

21/01/2007 08:26:20

Why is it that 'gays' must have all their rights and wishes protected, but people who may disagree with such a lifestyle are pilloried and ridiculed. Those who say live and let live often appear to apply this principle only to those with whom they agree.

If secular adoption groups consider co-habiting couples of whatever predilection as suitable candidates for adoption so be it, but if Church or other agencies who perceive a spiritual and moral dimension to family life wish to place children in environments which they regard as secure and supportive of the ethos to which they are committed , why is this such a cause concern?

There will be more than enough secular groups willing to meet the demands of the homo-sexual lobby in this matter, why should any religious faith group be required, under legal penalty to accommodate what they regard as intrinsically wrong?

27

Onlooker,

21/01/2007 08:34:39

Religion is an anachronism. Just LOOK at the self-satisfied, smug, vapid face of that closed-minded fool in that photo. Tired ancient beliefs, no mind of her own, hatred in her heart...worthless trash. There's no guarantee that if a hetero couple have or adopt a kid the kid is going to be raised well...but at least people who adopt kids, whatever their sexual orientation (or DISorientation in the case of Ruth Kelly, cos it's clear that anything outside the worthless confines of her worthless religion - yes, I said it in public, so what, I hate ALL religions - disorientates her to an alarming degree), actually WANT those kids, as opposed to some of the worthless white trash breeding like rats in Scotland today who can barely raise themselves from a heroin stupor to give their kids drugs to overdose on.

Get a grip Kelly you worthless dumb antediluvian clown.

Whoops. My language has been somewhat intemperate here. But at least I'm not running for political office and trying to enforce my own personal homespun beliefs on anybody else, through the law or otherwise.

28

eric,

21/01/2007 08:39:49

My mum stopped going to Chapel because of all the shirtlifting by Preists,

29

Gina Gibson,

Wales 21/01/2007 08:43:47

Ruth Kelly should bear in mind that only straight couples produce gay children! She should resign as the wishes of her religious masters are over riding the wishes of the people who elected her!

A child placed with a gay couple is more likely to grow up open minded than one placed with a "normal" couple who hold views based in the middle ages.

30

Joel,

21/01/2007 08:57:21

What any child needs is a loving mother and if not a blood father, a loving father figure - simple!

31

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 08:57:41

27 Your language destroys the validity of any point you were trying to make.If you were being assessed by a professional in this field as to your capacity or ability to adopt a child and this post was part of the information available then serious questions would be asked.If ,for example,you adopted a chiild and at age 8 he/she showed an interest in religion what line would you pursue?
Would you respect the principle of self determination or impose your views-ie I hate all religions !

32

Harriet,

21/01/2007 09:01:40

Actually the exemption already exists in Scotland under the Parliament legislation just passed. Faith-based agencies are allowed to reject people on the grounds of faith.

33

Garry Otton,

Scotland 21/01/2007 09:01:46

#26 But when religionists were given special protective laws we didn't hear a bleat! Come on, love...! Do you have any idea how many gay and bi men - many still in a 'straight' marriage - there are out there with kids?

34

Old Roy,

Black Isle 21/01/2007 09:03:17

In any gay 'couple' there are two 'points' of view. Used to be called in my army days ' Hurley for burley', one subjected by the dominant partner, one acting as the female and one as the male as would be in the natural order of things. The 'burley' type tend to be ultra promiscuous, enjoying the feeling of power over weaker partners and often wreaking havoc spreading mental and physical harm. It is wrong to consider a gay couple as both being balanced sexually and that is the danger in introducing a child to an unnatural environment.

35

Phil241106,

Airdrie 21/01/2007 09:03:43

#3 and #7 Thrashed out???...debated??? by people who have made such a mess in so many other areas?....with so many members who will not stand up for their Christian values lest it affects their income?....in case they might seem not to be PC?
#5 Adoption criteria??...established by the above????
#13 Religion against Society? Why don't you stop to think?...it's against the laws of Nature, not religion. We must accept that there are always things that happen against the correect flow of nature...things that aren't normal....and we should and must accept them, and deal with them as best we can; extend to those affected, all of their rights, but I object to the in-your-face lobbying of minorities that make demands against the laws of God's Nature...against what is normal.
I had the privilege to experience having a badly disabled member in my family who didn't demand special treatment during his liefetime, and I certainly didn't do it on his behalf, but he coped with his lot and had nothing but acclaim and honour when he passed on after almost 40 years. Do not flout the rules of Nature at your peril.

36

Garry Otton,

Scotland 21/01/2007 09:04:43

NOW HERE'S A CHANCE FOR THE SNP! Pick up all those lost votes from your open friendship with Catholic militants and the Roseanna Cunningham debacle... Stand together on the issue of equality and win the next election!

37

eric,

21/01/2007 09:06:50

My bothers Girlfriend dumped a baby on Him Knowing he was a junkie ,She just wanted here life back she said with the letter that came with the baby,Bless ,My mum at 6oyr took over ,But died When the kid was 10yr,My brother still out his face ,We traced the mother and she was out her face With new kids ,So My bothers kid ended up with me ,And my partner,As we never missed her birthday & xmas etc etc,She finished school ended up in Good job And for all the narrow minded folk .She has a BOYFREIND,

38

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 09:07:19

26 I think this is the crux issue.If you carry the implementation process forward it would certainly mean that a number of adoption agencies will be closed .What is really interesting is to read post after post critical of Holyroods stance on almost everything else yet they are extolled for passing this particular bit of legislation

39

Garry Otton,

Scotland 21/01/2007 09:08:20

# 36 Against the laws of nature my arse! Over 500 animals have now been studied to show homosexuality commonplace. The only reason we didn't know it before now was bigotry and ignorance.

40

,

21/01/2007 09:13:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 303742, Article id was mapped to record!
41

bill, england,

21/01/2007 09:13:40

With egg on her face.

42

Mikey,

21/01/2007 09:13:44

In a secular state, religious belief should be left at the door of whatever legislative body the person sits on. Should that person then try to force their religious beliefs on others, they should be then guilty of an offence.

If this woman was a muslim, all the rabid right would be cursing her for abusing her powers.

43

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 09:15:54

19 Opus Dei members have nothing to do with any form of inquisition -they live their lives as do the good folk of Lewis and Harris etc trying to put values into practice which have enhanced society and will continue to do so.This is the reason Alex Salmond respects faith schools in Scotland >

44

Centurion2,

Glasgow 21/01/2007 09:18:18

According to the 2001 Census 2/3rds of Scots are Christian.
More people attend church services on a weekly basis than the combined membership of all political parties in Scotland yet their views were totally ignored by the Scottish Parliament when formulating the adoprtion law.
It is completely undemocratic for a political party to adopt an official stance and apply the party Whip on moral questions.

45

Borderman,

Borders 21/01/2007 09:18:55

I was about to give an opinion then realised I hadn't a clue about how the adoption process works.

According to the article, adoption agencies place children with parents. But how are the children placed with the various adoption agencies in the first place? I.e. how does a particular agency acquire the right to find parents for a particular child? I suspect this might affect my opinion. Before I spend my Sunday trying to find out, can someone shed any light or point me to a suitable link?

46

Lumber Jack,

The Real World (Fife really) 21/01/2007 09:24:03

Bill, England 42.
My God you've just shown why people get upset about bigoted people like you. Just because Kelly is Catholic and come from Northern Ireland, you immediately insinuate that she is an IRA supporter. Get real you numpty

47

Lumber Jack,

The Real World (Fife really) 21/01/2007 09:24:39

This paper is getting more and more like the Sun. Here we have a story designed to upset, annoy and perhaps even frighten people. However, look at it again, there are no direct quotes from any named person apart from one from Barbara Hudson, director of the British Association of Adoption and Fostering. All the other quotes are from “a source close to…”, a “spokesman said” which to me say this is a story that has a small element of truth to it but a huge element of porkie pies!
My advice is don’t get your knickers in a twist over this crap

48

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 09:25:19

47 try "British Association for Adoption and Fostering " as a starter for ten .Assessment and screening procedures have to be thorough in the interests of the child

49

the_big_kev,

china 21/01/2007 09:26:32

how come this has turned into religion vs politics vs independence post.....

come on come on....think of the kids, they will go through murder from the play ground bullies. Gays getting kids is pc gone through the roof crazy style.
You can't get everything you want! ...you want a child, you get a partner of the opposite sex!

Its not often I agree with the catholic church but I do here (I do love their hypocrosy over gays!!).

and before some one types it..... yes the scum of the earth breed but that is nature... not much we can do without giving the new born the "snip"

I can see many expensive law suits in future when these kids grow up and feel society did them wrong by putting them in with gays. I could just about accept 2 gay women getting a child but never two "men".

in the same way that religion forced upon a child ensures more people turn out religious (than would ever choose to be at 18 years+ given their first introduction) ..... kids given to gays will mean that more kids will turn to or try gay sex in the future... some gay plot in here eh? I think it's called pheno-type... what u get / take from your surroundings

50

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 09:30:14

44 In the same sense -on the basis of your argument-those who oppose religion should declare their interests and "leave these at the door".The impact of non-belief on our actions is as powerful (and as potentially insidious) as belief -again on the basis of your argument

51

bill, england,

21/01/2007 09:44:46

48. Lumber Jack, The Real World (Fife really)

Not a bigot, I said stock. Her grandfather was an IRA quartermaster.

52

Onlooker,

21/01/2007 09:47:07

#46, that's rubbish. Where do your figures come from? Church propaganda. Europe is a post-religious society, which is why the churches are empty. Consumerism is the new religion of choice. Religions always claim exclusivity over HUMAN traits ie being good to other people, not hurting other people, etc. And it ALWAYS ends up in mind-control garbage. Has done since the dawn of time. And dictating to people that they are not worthy of having a child because they both have penises is disgusting.

53

Em.C.Spiteri,

Turn left and straight on. 21/01/2007 09:50:30

Whether you like and accept religion or not, it was the first that civilised humanity. Those who not sucsbribe to it are on a merry-go-round.

54

Lumber Jack,

The Real World (Fife really) 21/01/2007 09:54:25

Bill, that doesn't mean she is an IRA sympathizer. Why mention it? It has no relevance.

55

Onlooker,

21/01/2007 09:55:44

#32. You think I'm not clever enough to nod and smile blankly in any questionnaire about my religious beliefs in any hypothetical situation about adoption? Please don't confuse me with MPs or MSPs or whoever; I am an extremely intelligent person. If my kid was interested in religion I would give them an overview of the world faiths, tell them what is good and bad about them, then tell them about the new science of neurotheology (ie the study of religion in the brain) and tell them they were free to work it out for themselves. Only don't come home a Jesus freak or Muslim or I'll kill you!

56

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 09:57:16

46 it is refreshing to hear such clear unbiased views!!I will now go to church where I will meet a great group of folk who live their lives to the best of their ability and have a great sense of humour and help one another.They do no harm in the same sense that all people of belief or otherwise do no harm.Those with extreme views are more likely to do harm.The church I attend is full each Sunday-I hope I offend no one by going there.By the way if you are into the Dawkinesque arguments there are plenty of answers to atheistic humanisn

57

Onlooker,

21/01/2007 09:58:58

#56 When did humanity become (cough) 'civilized'? Tell the people in Iraq or a hundred other global hotspots that we're 'civilized'. We are apes (share nearly 99% of our DNA with chimps) with delusions of grandeur; nothing more, nothing less, more or less. If we WERE civilized we wouldn't have to listen to worthless hatefilled muppets like Ruth Kelly spew their slew of worthless Vatican-led nonsense.

Sigh.

58

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 10:00:47

59 You combine prejudice and irrationality beautifully with a thin veneer of intellectualism -that is your right

59

educational snob,

Edinburgh 21/01/2007 10:05:54

O, what a gay day!

60

the_big_kev,

china 21/01/2007 10:07:11

#53..... Hughie....brain calling typing finger, hello hello

are you stupid man? only some gays are bad parents but .....as would many hetrosexual ones.... I don't think u meant that but...

I guess you are over 40? can u imagine going to school and everyone laughing at you... cos of your dad and dad! no the best way to start each day... remember some teachers may not be too understanding either.

61

Onlooker,

21/01/2007 10:07:19

Well, according to you that is my WRONG...prejudice and irrationality are the mainstays of humanity throughout the past so who am I to go against the grain of all human history?

62

Onlooker,

21/01/2007 10:08:38

#65was for #60, who had the temerity to call himself 'Sage', which might accept in the form of a herb. but apart from that nothing else...

63

Borderman,

Borders 21/01/2007 10:08:43

Sage, thanks for the reference. I did a little searching, but didn't find a clear answer to my question. However, I gather that saying adoption agencies place children with prospective parents may give the wrong picture. I think it's more accurate to say they place prospective parents with children awaiting adoption. The difference is that the children are not the property of the agencies in the first place, but are usually under the care of a local authority or court. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

If that's true, then I don't have any problems with agencies being discriminatory with their selection procedures. As long as the parents meet the requirements, and there are agencies available that cater for people of all backgrounds, and no agency has preferential treatment over another, what's the problem? Alongside Catholic agencies I see a place for agencies that cater for Gay people.

64

AST,

Edinburgh 21/01/2007 10:09:08

What a lot of people seem to be forgetting here is that the only people who matter in this situation are the children who have the misfortune to need new adoptive families. Nobody has a right to adopt just as no one has a right to give birth.

In an ideal world it should be fine for gay couples to adopt with no one batting an eyelid but it is not an ideal world and I believe that children adopted by gay couples will more likely to be bullied or harrased by other children. Its not fair that this would happen but it is a fact of life and we have to accept it.

These children have already had a terrible start to life. They should not be sacrificed on the alter of political correctness. I'm sorry if this upsets gay people who no doubt could offer children a safe secure environment.

Hopefully as a society we will all grow up sometime and this situation will change.

65

Big Red,

Aberdeen 21/01/2007 10:20:23

It sickens me when people use religion as an excuse for bigotry and predjudice.
One of the great steps our society has taken over the last 20 years is to (try and) introduce equality over the board and to eliminate predjudice based on sexuality, race, disability etc.
It's a slow process but it's getting there.
I despair when I hear of people who are still blinkered by religion.

66

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 10:25:46

66 I have always deplored herb discrimination -Rosemary and Thyme get too much publicity in my view-as if they are the only ones with rights.
Sage Liberation Front

67

Scaramouche,

21/01/2007 10:27:13

Don't worry, gay people. In 100 years, people like you will still be around. The religious ones will be far less fewer by millions!

Then adoption will be easier for those who want to care for kids ....... not the god you worship ...... if any!

68

,

21/01/2007 10:27:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 303873, Article id was mapped to record!
69

MacCoinnich,

21/01/2007 10:28:36

#35 - what a load of nonsense. I can only assume that you don't actually know any gay couples.

70

kod01,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 10:30:48

its hard enough for a young person to go through the school system as it is without adding the further complication of gay parents to the process.

71

AST,

Edinburgh 21/01/2007 10:31:24

#69 As I said, in an ideal world gay people should be allowed to adopt but not when this would make vulnerable children even more vulnerable.

The children must always come first. They are the only ones who matter in this debate.

72

kod01,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 10:32:23

it was'nt the couples i was worried about.

73

bill, england,

21/01/2007 10:35:31

57. Lumber Jack, The Real World (Fife really)

The fact that her grandfather was an IRA quartermaster, that she has Opus Dei connections, and that she had egg on her face when she was in charge of education are all relevant.

We are entitled to know where our Ministers are coming from, where they are, and where they going. I might add, especially those in this disastrous government.

74

GW,

Aberdeenshire 21/01/2007 10:39:46

Hi Big Red.

You say that one of the great steps of our society is to eliminate prejudice based on sexuality, race, disability etc.

Could your 'etc' include religious persuasion? It seems to me that there are a lot of people posting comments here who have double standards. They want people to be treated without prejudice on grounds of sexuality but show completely prejudiced and discriminatory views when it comes to religious belief.

75

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 10:39:48

70 I thought equal rights applied to everybody-including people who hold certain values based on religion-have they lost these rights by virtue of their belief??

76

Centurion2,

Glasgow 21/01/2007 10:40:15

55. I was talking about democracy. If your mind can't rise above the waist, that's not my problem.

77

Old Roy,

Black Isle 21/01/2007 10:40:25

#74 I have worked in the fashion industry for over fifty years and am well aware of how the gays live their lives. Most are lovely people but are by their nature vulnerable to those who wish to take advantage of them. Have seen this happening time and time again with disasterous results. As in nature the sexual power hungry will use and abuse at every opportunity. However in any proposed adoption the child's life and future prospects have to be paramount, I am aware that some gay couples could be good parents but an adopted child will immediately be at a disadvantage with his/her peers.

78

Blarney,

Edinburgh 21/01/2007 10:41:16

It would seem the anti gay brigade believe that a child brought up with gay parents is going to turn out damaged psychologicaly, and far better then to leave them with numerous foster parents or in a childrens home. What a load of tosh! A loving stable home is a loving stable home no matter who the parents are.

79

JG,

Fife 21/01/2007 10:48:36

This woman is (over and above everything else) the most irritating female in politics (well, it was close between her and that woman in charge of Health - I'm not long up and can't remember her name at the moment!!!). Whenever she starts to speak I have that "Aw what noo!?!" kind of reaction. Being a bit suspicious, I also wonder if this is an effort to deflect the heat she's caused by sending her wee boy to that private school.

80

James 53,

Glasgow 21/01/2007 10:49:32

# 73. I wondered when the old paedophilia slur would raise it's ugly head. Mr Deuchars you should be ashamed of your self. Given your high profile campaign on family matters I'm sure you know that most child abuse takes place within the family and most of it is of a hetersexual nature. This ludicrous, ignorant and bigoted comment of yours does neither you nor your organisation any credit whatsoever.

81

john montgomery,

21/01/2007 10:49:57

no one has a right to have children. they are not a commodity. so when even hetrosexuals say they have right thye do not.

I do not agree with gay adoptions from the point of view it has never been shwon that it will not damage the child in later years. No matter what minority pressure groups like stonewall say society has never accepted homsexuality as normal. as usual it is those who shout loudest who are heard. Of course as usual we get thsoe in power agreeing with such groups as no one wants to be seen as not being hip and modern. thewy do not like being castigated as Ruth Kelly will be for fear on not being groovy. Its hight time, people were free to air their views without fear of the facist gay lobby shouting down free speech.

Those who say religious organisitions gould not be allowed to opt out are wrong They are willing to end such groups being invloved in adoption purely for their own selfish ends. ie, if I cannot get my own way then no one will be able to do anything.

82

Borderman,

Borders 21/01/2007 10:53:15

#69 "Separate" agencies will only lead to further division.

Is that division or diversity? Surely division comes from forcing everyone to march to the same tune.

83

john montgomery,

21/01/2007 10:55:28

oops before the gay looby says us normal folk cannot write properly, I have seen my mistakes.

If one refutes that we now live in a country dictated by the facist gays, what about the couple who down south one damages against the police who arrested them for trying to put their arguments against the gay lobby. Yes this is what we have now become, a country where the minority thought police rule. I know some will try to take down my postings as some gays do not like counter arguments. They are right and we are all wrong.

84

Keir Hardie,

Inverness 21/01/2007 10:55:55

I remember Ruth Kelly saying that her membership of Opus Dei wouldn't affect her work. Pity she doesn't remember that.

85

john montgomery,

21/01/2007 10:57:21

89. thats what I mean, typical of those who advocate gay rights. by your words you have let yourself down. So all gays look the same. mmmm....

86

JG,

Fife 21/01/2007 10:59:17

#89 Boaby
Aye, that's the one - she talks to people (on camera) as if she's trying to explain something to someone with an IQ of about 10. Ruth Kelly sounds as if she's trying to digest a pillow.

87

john montgomery,

21/01/2007 11:00:02

91, so here are attacking someones religious beliefs. T

88

GW,

Aberdeenshire 21/01/2007 11:01:04

Hi thatscottishwoman

I know a family very well who have now managed to adopt three children (unable to have their own naturally) but had difficulties at the start of the adoption process because they attend church regularly - were they religious fanatics seemed to be the issue.

What I would hope we should all agree on is that the interests of the children must be the priority. It appears however, that certain groups think the adoption debate is about their 'right' to adopt.

89

john montgomery,

21/01/2007 11:04:16

95, quite right . there is no real freedom where minority pressure groups are concerned. Gays are a minority.

90

kod01,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 11:05:06

Children can be hurtful.Putting a child into school with the backround of gay parents puts them at a disadvantage in todays climate .Whatever way you spin it it has an effect.People are people gay or not .People have the capicity to love and are well able to raise kids in a loving house but until you can alter the basic prejudice it won't change. If you asked how to make the change well this is a good place start.

91

livilion,

livingston 21/01/2007 11:08:31

Gay Rights? Fine by me, just so long as they don't try to make it compulsary.

What gets me is, where are the checks and balances that are supposed to prevent extremists, political, religious, or whatever, imposing their unrepresentative will on the general population?

One of the reasons we demanded our own parliament (regional assembly) was because of the unhappy experience Scotland suffered, under the Tories, of economic experiments and dogma, during the 80's, .

92

livilion,

livingston 21/01/2007 11:10:52

hunnerup?

93

Alec in Chicago,

21/01/2007 11:12:23

I have a friend who, along with his brother, was raised by two gay men - their uncle and his partner. Neither brother seems to have the least tendency toward homosexuality. Each went to university, entered a profession, married a woman, and eventually fathered three children. They have remained married for several decades now, which is a better track record than most couples can claim.

If you are worried that homosexuality will somehow be 'learned' from gay parents, well: How do you explain all those homosexuals out there, almost every one of whom sprang from heterosexual couples/families? Shouldn't they have learned to be straight from their straight parents?

94

Ken,

21/01/2007 11:15:31

Two Points:
1. I agree with her views
2. That being said, it should be for the Scottish Parliament to decide, ie keep he nose out of scottish affairs.

I don't agree with the scot exec's decision, neither do I agree that anything like the majority of scotland agree's either.

Two separate issues here

95

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 21/01/2007 11:16:47

Just because people are happy shouldn't exlude them from adopting kids. Ruth Kelly is the most miserable person I've ever seen on the telly. And now she's trying to spoil it for everyone. Shame on those who voted her in. I bet theyr'e not so gay now.

96

Evan Owen,

Snowdonia 21/01/2007 11:20:00

If all couples were 'gay' there wouldn't be any naturally conceived children.

I don't like the thought of that.

97

Lumber Jack,

The Real World (Fife really) 21/01/2007 11:20:10

Bill 78
So tell me why "The fact that her grandfather was an IRA quartermaster" is relevant?

98

David C,

Fife 21/01/2007 11:24:47

Always an amazing array of views. However, it has been proved time and again that a heterosexual marriage is the best condition to breed and raise children. There have already been cases of gay men abusing young children they have adopted. Many of societies problems today stem from the fact that political correctness dictates what is acceptable, without having to justify it. 129 MSPs seem to think they know better, but the reaction from not only church leaders, but many other sections of society, would appear to show that they are wrong.
The child's interests must come first, and a vociferous minority, about 1%, of the population, should not be dictating to the remainder on this issue. While I accept there may be some longterm gay relationships, and longterm heterosexual but unmarried relationships, the fact remains that the breakup rate for these groups is still far higher than for married couples.
So, adoption for the children with only their best interests at heart, and not some PC driven policy enforced by a minority.

99

Centurion2,

Glasgow 21/01/2007 11:25:34

89# I wonder if Boaby would like to post a photograph of himself on the site so we can all form our own opinions about his appearance. Are you man enough, Boaby?

100

it has always been allan,

21/01/2007 11:26:29

I agree with no 21.

I do not think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. it is a step too far.

At the swimmimg pool they are always trying to accidentally touch anyone they fancy.

When I took my grandson and his pal there I had to be very protective.

Who takes the blame if things go wrong.

101

Alec in Chicago,

21/01/2007 11:31:03

# 51 kev

Catholicism was forced on me when I was a kid - even to the extent of being sent to Catholic school. I have had absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic church since my graduation. And let me tell you, after eight years, the nuns were as happy to see me leave as I was to finally escape their clutches.

Your phenotype is the *physical* manifestation of your genetic makeup and environment. (By the way, a child's environment includes a lot more than parents).

102

Centurion2,

Glasgow 21/01/2007 11:34:23

#108

Hear,hear David.

PC inclusiveness seems to apply to everyone but the heterosexual Christian majority.

103

Stickman,

21/01/2007 11:35:06

#110. A ridiculous comment! I suspect it was an attempt to get a hysterical response though.

I am against homosexuals adopting children, however I think allowing religion to dictate politics is dangerous and wrong. The two should not influence each other.

104

Centurion2,

Glasgow 21/01/2007 11:46:12

#115

Absolutely correct. Political parties should not adopt a predetermined stance on moral questions and employ the party Whip to force through decisions taken by a small group within the party.

105

AJ19,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 11:54:22

#73. The only reason a child brought up by gay adoptive parets would be a misfit in society is due to the intollerance of people such as yourself being passed on to there own children. You show yourself up as nothing more than a small minded bigot. Further to this, your comment "It is a child's god given right to be adopted into a traditional family setting." It is no ones god given right to be adopted by anyone and it is only due to generosity of adoptive parents that there are not more children being brought up care. Would this be you prefered option? Given the catholic churches abject failure to deal with systematic and ongoing child abuse within it's churches I think making statements such as "This type of adoption increases the chance of paedophiles targeting children for their perverted means", are foolish to say the least.

106

davieboy144,

21/01/2007 11:55:42

Alex Salmond could sort it out the next time he has lunch with Cardinal O'Brien in his bid to win over the Catholic vote.

Maybe he could take along Roseanna Cunningham as she oppposed it in the Scottish Parliament a month or so ago.

Strange bedfellows indeed!!!

107

Davydubbit,

Edinburgh 21/01/2007 11:56:27

#35 Old Roy.

I burst out laughing at that nonsense. You cannot have been serious?! All you did there was apply an outdated straight couple steryotype to every gay couple. "the natural order of things" you say is "The 'burley' type tend to be ultra promiscuous, enjoying the feeling of power over weaker partners and often wreaking havoc spreading mental and physical harm" which would suggest your role in your relationships... I pity an lady you've known!

108

Angus Mor,

God's Own Island 21/01/2007 11:58:28

it's always been Allan

I'm never going to your swimming pool mate!! ;-)

Anyway, personal opinion/prejudice asides, lets look at the propaganda given to us via modern media that gives us our opinion of homosexuals.

Will and Grace (the actor who plays will is actually straight), Elton John, George Micheal, Boy George, That dress wearing wet lettuce in Hollyoaks (thank my daughter for that one) and so on and so forth.

Now, to all the homosexuals out there and homosexual lovers/likers, are they acceptable role models for your sexuality and does it portray an accurate picture of your sexual society and does it have an efect on the way hetrosexuals percieve homosexuals?

The reason I ask is tha, an being honest, homosexuals are a minority of people and the majority i.e. hetrosexuals,don't really have a huge daily contact with homosexuals. And before you all scream "but my best froend is a homosexual" etc. There is a hug section of pople who have no dealings ith homosexuals by choice or otherwise and therefore we have little knowledge of homosexuals other than from the media which sees you as ultra camp, cottaging on a common, drug taking dress wearing promiscious perverts.

109

ferco,

Scotland 21/01/2007 12:00:05

I am not quite sure on the matter... I agree that for a child to have perhaps to mothers or two fathers is better than no parents and in many cases "gays" are better parents that some of the Heterosexual parents around today... But it can't be easy for a child growing up with Homosexuals as parents; again relating to the mocking in the playground... Also this is again going a step to far in the attempts to make Homosexuality a "natural" and "normal" thing; it is not. This is a very difficult and touchy subject with one wrong word making you sound either "Gay" or "Nazi." I do not envy the politicians who have to make the final decisions.

110

JG,

Fife 21/01/2007 12:04:36

#110 ithasalwaysbeenallan
I suspect your comment was posted simply to "get a rise" out of some poor unsuspecting soul! There are no statistics that prove homosexuals are any more or less likely to sexually assault children than their heterosexual counterparts.

I think the point here is that, if Scotland is meant to pass laws about the adoption of children, then it should be allowed to do so. It has got absolutely naff all to do with the pontificating Ruth Kelly.

111

Harry Truscot,

Kent 21/01/2007 12:05:53

Whilst I agree that the ten commandments are an admirable set of lifstyle guidelines which would make the world a better place if universally observed, I don't deel that any sane person can be expected to follow the man made dogma of any dreamed up religion.

Surely a blind belief in millennia old fairy tales (usually battered into the brain from pre school age onward - and I mean battered, I recall being hit with a belt at my Glasgow R.C. primary school for not recalling the previous days gospel reading from mass) is enough to disqualify anyone from being considered capable of exercising considered judgment and responsibilty in public office.

If this vain paragon of smugness is incapable of leaving her bizarre cultish beliefs in a drawer at home, she should find another job. Very soon...

112

Jmhzx,

BRIGHTON 21/01/2007 12:06:47

Why does the Roman Catholic church have adoption agencies? Isn't that what we pay the Council for? I grew up in care in Nazareth House, Lasswade. I'd have swapped a hundred gay dads for those Roman catholic priests and nuns anytime.

An organisation with the recent history of the RC church has no right condemning the parenting potential of anyone.

2 dads or 2 mums doesn't matter. Kids just want to be loved and feel safe...and I got bullied for being from 'the hame' much more than I would have got bullied for having two mums....a third of kids nowadays have two mums and two dads anyway because of marriage break-ups.

113

Ellis,

Devon 21/01/2007 12:16:00

Must agree with 31 on this one and hope that the following proposal will also be reversed "Fathers no longer needed under fertility law overhaul"


Subject: FW: National Charity appauled by the Labour parties new inititive to remove still more fathers from a children’s life’s by way of "Fathers no longer needed under fertility law overhaul"

The Charity National Society for Children and Family Contact are appalled but not surprised to learn that yet again the Labour party are taking another step towards removing the right of a child to have a father and paternal side of the family in its life. Here we are with an ever increasing epidemic of fatherless children due to family law as it so stands which in its misguided wisdom continues to separate children at the rate of approx 100 per day from that of their paternal side of the family. Grandparents aunties, uncles none have a legal right to remain in the Childs life, the ramifications upon society of which are all to clear to see with anti-social and dysfunctional behaviour at an all time high due for the best part by the lack of the very role models such children are entitled too if they are to become well rounded citizens of tomorrow in adulthood. That Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the like all fathers in their own right are blinded by the consequences of their policies is by far the greatest crime of all and a legacy that will undoubtedly go down in history as their having had a total disregard for traditional family life the like of which has forever and a day been the very foundation of human society. Hence we for our part will do everything in our power to highlight such blatant folly in the hope that yet another generation of children will not be subjected to a breach of their human rights.

114

Billy,

Germany 21/01/2007 12:17:19

Given this woman's dreadfull record on child care,
I believe she is the last person who should be dictating where vulnerable children should be placed. This is another example of Westminster not taking the Scottish Parliment seriously. Independance is rapidly becoming our only alternative to more of the same.

115

Centurion2,

Glasgow 21/01/2007 12:20:26

Fury at Kelly threat to gay adoptions.

This tabloid type headline is at odds with the content of the article, which is not about homosexuals being allowed to adopt, but about faith-based adoption societies being forced to accept homosexuals as adoptive parents, contrary to the ethos of the societies concerned.

Sectarianism in Scotland on Sunday?

116

beech hedge,

21/01/2007 12:23:49

The argument isn't whether gays should be allowed to adopt,but that the Scottish parlaiment passed a law and no one especially westminster can change it.

117

rab, glasgow,

21/01/2007 12:26:35

124. JG, Fife /Sources close to Kelly last night confirmed she wanted to see all elements of the Sexual Orientation (Provision of Goods and Services) Regulations applying throughout the UK, meaning they would take precedence over the Scottish Parliament's own laws.
Scottish law is devolved, as long as london can change it or ignore it.
Another slap in the face for the numpty executive
by their london masters.

118

Scaramouche,

21/01/2007 12:29:10

I knew several kids with parents who are either both or singly gay.

Absolutely NONE of those kids grew up gay. They are all married with kids of their own now.

I also know of a lovely heterosexual couple who had two boys and they BOTH turned out gay. These boys are now happy with partners.

WHEN ARE THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY (at least) GOING TO LEARN THAT BEING GAY IS A GENETIC CONDITION THAT CANNOT BE REVERSED?? AND BEING GAY DOES NOT MEAN PAEDOPHILIA!!!

That's what you're all driving at. You're "concerned" that gay people want kids so that they can "fiddle" with them.

WHAT ARRANT NONSENSE!!!

Like I said, I know lots of families, young and old, where a gay parent or a gay child just try to get through each day.

THIS KIND OF "DEBATE" ON THIS COLUMN DOES NOT DRIVE IT FORWARD IN A REASONED WAY.

And frankly ......... religion has NO place in it!!!

119

morris,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 12:30:04

Irrespective of whether you favour the rights of Gays to adopt or not,I would have thought a far more important point is
Does Holyrood have the right to introduce this,because if it does (ie its a devolved matter) then Westminster and Ruthless Kelly have no right to interfere!
This applies to all devolved matters surely OR THERE IS NO DEVOLUTION!
Am I missing something here ?

120

Budgie,

21/01/2007 12:30:34

Ruth Kelly appears to be in politics to promote the dictates of her faith, rather than the interests of her constituents.
We hear so much about the "West Lothian Question", but this will be an example of it in reverse if her amendment is implemented in Scotland - overruling a decision already adopted by the Scottish Parliament.

121

Angus Mor,

God's Own Island 21/01/2007 12:34:45

PEDOPHILIA IS ALSO A GENETIC CONDITION BUT SOCIETY HAS DEEMED THEM WRONG SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT SCARAMOUCHE?

122

skeptic griggsy,

augusta,ga 21/01/2007 12:37:39

Rossmcl and Onlooker are so right.Gays are just like everyone else. Love and proper discipline count. I don't care for the evils of religion and do acknowledge the good which could come without it and I find arguments for religion vacuous.When religion is against humanist values- rational values for people , other animals and the enviornment, them one should counterattack it. If it is for humanist values, then fine. Many religious are for gay rights- human rights. Thankfully, the religious do not countenance the evil passages in their scriptures[.I mean the Abrahamic religions.] When they rationally do morality, they use humanist morality! It is not we humanists who live off theirs! Mary Jo , eh?

123

JG,

Fife 21/01/2007 12:39:52

#131 Rab
I knew that laws like the Road Traffic Act were ratified in Westminster as it makes sense to have the same law to cover ALL of the roads on this wee island of ours, etc.. I also saw that the parly had passed the law recently about gays being allowed to adopt children and think she has a cheek forcing her opinions on us. Her knowledge lies in politics, philosphy and economics (I looked it up!!) - what makes her think she knows better than you or me when it comes to children?

124

martin , surrey,

godalming, surrey 21/01/2007 12:43:10

Eric 38, the most sane and sensible item posted on this storey and moving as well.

125

joolze,

north west 21/01/2007 12:45:21

Ruth Kelly is a member of the sinister Opus Dei, which has ties to the Roman Catholic church, and who paractise corporal mortification, which is a 'voluntary infliction of pain or discomfort upon oneself.' As an elected official however, she should be working for the benefit of all the people in her community, and not to her own dogmatic religous beliefs.

126

Florence,

Edinburgh 21/01/2007 13:02:01

Re Nevyn @ No. 7. I agree that the Scottish Parliament debated this issue and that Ruth Kelly should not interfere with their decision. However, they ignored the wishes of the majority of the people and the advice of the various adoption and children's organisations and once again ran rough-shod over the views of the Scottish electorate. It is the sheer arrogance of these two-bit nonentities that really gets up my nose.

127

Helen,

21/01/2007 13:09:30

Nevyn #7 Well said!!! As a gay, practising Catholic, I am constantly reassured by the support and affirmation I receive from my fellow churchgoers. Most Catholics I know don't have a problem with adoption by anyone who is suitable and will give the child a loving home. Sexuality doesn't really come into the equation. Of all my gay friends who have children, I'm fairly sure that all their offspring have turned out to be heterosexual. Bringing a child up in a same sex household won't make the child gay, but it might help the child and their friends to be inclusive and tolerant.

128

the_big_kev,

china 21/01/2007 13:12:07

#117...... those damned hetro parents of mine..... if only I got gay men instead I'd had attacked you with more fruity language.

132. Scaramouche (sorry but I picture you like a Scottish John Inman). If you take a pee in the street in Scotland and are caught you go on the sex offenders list, meaning that you can't teach or many other things, probably can't even adopt! (not all men busting for a pee are flashing....). Someone thought up that beauty, gays not adopting is in a different league.

Assuming the worst for the sake of the kids cannot be a totally bad thing. Ok, I am probably not a nice man in many people eyes but I wouldn't allow single men to be Scout leaders either.

129

livilion,

livingston 21/01/2007 13:14:32

#140. jennifer
""..Unfortunately,not everyone knows how to love oneself..""
I thought everyone got the hang of this in their teens!

130

An Australian,

Edinburgh 21/01/2007 13:16:30

#26 said:
"If secular adoption groups consider co-habiting couples of whatever predilection as suitable candidates for adoption so be it, but if Church or other agencies who perceive a spiritual and moral dimension to family life wish to place children in environments which they regard as secure and supportive of the ethos to which they are committed , why is this such a cause concern?"

Because the Church is wrong to suggest that gays would bring up children immorally, and wrong to put such a value on one type of family life asif it was natural or the only correct option. We cannot base laws on such errors--so the Church will have to put up with enlightened laws, until its final demise when people stop believing in such superstition.

131

JohnM,

London 21/01/2007 13:20:47

I've got no real axe to grind against homosexuals adopting children, however all I would say is get used to being told what to do by a 'higher' parliament as that's what will happen if an independent Scotland joins the EU.
What price independence then!

132

Garry Otton,

Scotland 21/01/2007 13:22:04

Nice one #116! Despite a huge clamour for the so-called 'equality' minister Ms Kelly's sacking, did Labour listen? We'll see how much they listen when we all go to the polls. Militant religionists are welcome to apply their predjudices in their care homes, peddle their superstitions in 'faith' schools or favour a 'straight' crack addict mum to a couple of good gay dads in adoption agencies. Just not with public money.

133

grannie,

glasgow 21/01/2007 13:25:40

Reading most of these comments makes me feel sad. Perhaps when man and woman was made they should have only been able to produce clones of themselves, we would all then look and think alike ( how tedious) it would be like only having one flower or tree in the garden,one only coluor. The slurs on other people using such names as scum I find truly offensive. I am only grateful that none of my own ever were involved in drugs or such like but realise that sometimes people are as they are because of unfortunate happenings in their life. I have deliberately tried not to use the word God in case this would offend .

134

Bystander,

Edinburgh 21/01/2007 13:29:07

It's about time aetheists turned the tables on religious catholic bigots.I say burn her at the stake!

135

,

21/01/2007 13:32:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
136

An Australian,

Edinburgh 21/01/2007 13:43:20

#152 said:

"Without the input of the Churches this Society is rapidly becoming a Communist/Nazi state underpinned by strictly Consumerist principles."

I am not sure if communism or national socialism is based on consumerist principles; very much the opposite.

But I do think that a society only gets better with less religion--we would not be at war int he Middle East right now if it were not for religion...

137

bill, england,

21/01/2007 13:45:16

107. Lumber Jack, The Real World (Fife really)

I've already told you. It's where she's coming from; we have a right to know.

138

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 13:49:26

A child is best placed with a family.

He\she should not be placed with homosexuals.

139

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 21/01/2007 14:05:01

So none o' you bible bashers and moralists up for adopting gay kids then?.....think they might 'confuse' your own kids as they are not 'normal'?....or maybe you are all for it as you could have a good bash at straightening the poor confused souls out and showing them the error of their ways.

35...Stereotyping
38....Eric thanks for that example...a taste of reality folks.
56.....that really is a bit gauche...and naive...just you keep on walking....religion is the curse of this planet and keeps people destroying people through the poison it spreads...intolerance..domination and control.

140

Derick fae Yell,

21/01/2007 14:05:32

22 "just so daggy to be anti-gay"

Hey, learned a new word today. Thanks Yane!
goes off to practice
Daggy. Daggy. Daggy Daggy Lo. No that's a cajun tune.

141

AJ19,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 14:10:01

to the person who said "However, they ignored the wishes of the majority of the people". Sorry I missed the national referendum on the issue. Could you please refresh my memory as to the date? Was it some time about 1670?

142

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 14:13:33

148 If faith based services were to be withdrawn from the spectrum of educational and socail welfare services in this country you would a totally disastrous deficit in services--there would be a crisis of considerable magnitude and people would suffer and die The Church of Scotland ,for example, runs , and subsdises ,approximately 70 establishments and has a remarkable track record in introducing pioneering services such as Simpson House in Edinburgh and specialist projects for drug addicted prostitutes -long before statutory agencies were launched to cover these needs.In truth most of the pioneering welfare services in Britain were initiated by Christian based bodies -lets get our facts right Further I was always struck by the responsiveness of central government when gay advocacy produced funding for many of the gay specific services in the health field -covering sexual issues to do with HIV infection and general health. I represented the interests of young people who were Hiv + thro intravenous drug use or thro other channels.I can say that the gay rights groups achieved the lions share of funding-fairly ruthlessly I have to say given the relative numbers in these respective groups.Advocacy at best should be balanced and cosider the needs of other groups as well as those of a specific communityThere is in fact a basic contradiction represented in gay specific health provision given the equality principles used to justify other aspects of inclusion-ie they should use mainstream services ??.
I fear that the gay rights movement is in grave danger of losing public support and sympathy due to their disregard for the needs of others and their pugnacious and aggressive campaining.I wonder if Muslim specific health provision will receive sympathetic consideration -this proposal was aired last week as a legitimate concern

143

AJ19,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 14:14:47

Besides, untill the man up stairs holds a press conference and tell's us what he really think's, then all the thumpers are basicaly taking part in the world's longest running game of chinese wispers. If someone said today that god had spoken directly to them they'd be sectioned (or elected president of the USA, depends on your side of the Atlantic) so why do we contine believe this nonsense?

144

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 14:26:11

The religous right have no 'right' to dictate to the elected officials of Holyrood.

They often complain of being attacked for their beliefs yet want to be given the right to hate and discriminate against decent, law abiding, tax paying citizens based on their sexuality.

Their are so many reasons why gay couples should be allowed to adopt and the one main reason they religious hate groups give is their book of fables.

I am 100% in favour of equality and is it any wonder the church is dwindling in numbers each year as they peddle such hatred.

145

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 14:32:38

156 By jove ,Doreen< it is youself indeed that is devoid of these curses of man and woman kind -the dreaded "intolerance,domination and control" These tere the ferry things I told Sunny Jim to watch out for when he went to that ceilidh in Oban !!
Best regards PH

146

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 14:38:30

161 Delighted to read you are 100% in favour of equality -you should have no problem with the concept that Christians can express views too.In this specific case I understand that Scottish ministers have already given assirances that Catholic adoption agencies would in no circumstances be required to act in a manner contrary to their faith or beliefs

147

Eve,

Scotland 21/01/2007 14:46:59

"Communities and Local Government minister Ruth Kelly " wants to over tun dession made in Holyrood.
Some one really needs to ask her WHAT THE PURPOUSE of the SCOTTISH PARLEMENT IS if Westminster can over rule at any time.

Ruth Kelly doesn't appear to belive in equality and yet her post is to do with the Communites (What a Joke that part of her title is).

This is the main problem, though:
""Whatever one thinks of the issue itself, it is clear Westminster should not be able to overrule the Scottish Parliament on a subject where MSPs have made their views perfectly clear," an SNP spokesman said"

If Ruth Kelly wants to do that with this, then wants goney stop another MP at Westminster wanting to over rule something that Holyrood as actual passed (And not just passed back to Westminster, like other topics)

148

dct,

strathmartine 21/01/2007 14:47:00

this woman Kelly claiming to be devout, might as well wear a sign reading "I am an idiot".

149

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 14:52:42

#163

The difference between gay couples and the leaders of the religous pressure groups is that they seek to deny the same EQUAL RIGHTS that heterosexual couples enjoy based.

That is not equality - that is seeking to enforce their OPINION on anyone who does not fit with their viewpoint.

The church is not in charge of people's lives - thank goodness!!

150

Eve,

Scotland 21/01/2007 14:53:25

This a link to the stoy about Ruth Kelly on the Scotsman:
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=37422007

Again:
Ruth Kelly doesn't appear to belive in equality and yet her post is to do with the Communites (What a Joke that part of her title is).


http://search.scotsman.com/scripts/rwisapi.dll/@scotsman....[Start_Row]=1&CQ_DO_QUERY=YES

151

Eve,

Scotland 21/01/2007 14:54:36

http://search.scotsman.com/scripts/rwisapi.dll/@scotsman....[Start_Row]=1&CQ_DO_QUERY=YES

152

Lumber Jack,

Fife 21/01/2007 15:09:07

Bill 154

Why do "we have a right to know"?
What difference does it make to this debate?

153

Pension Lost!,

21/01/2007 15:11:13

#110.

God Mr do not flatter yourself! I quote:" At the swimmimg pool they are always trying to accidentally touch anyone they fancy."

You are clearly delusional and really shodul not flatter yourself that gay men might be interested in you!

You are stright I guess does that mean that you are always trying to accidentally touch any woman or little girl you see at the swimming pool? Hmmm given your comments I do wonder. It always seems to be those with something to hide that make the most noise Mr!

154

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 15:12:08

#166
Heterosexual couples DO have a right to apply to be adoptive parent.

Homosexual couples would be excluded if the church had it's way.

155

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 15:13:34

Equality is meaningless if you have one set of rules for one section of society and seperate rules for another.

It's that simple.

156

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 15:15:11

#111

The comments you make are unnacceptable. If you replaced the word gay or homosexual with black or asian you would probably have a visit from the police.

157

,

21/01/2007 15:16:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
158

What's Up Jock?,

21/01/2007 15:49:19

#124 ...you mean the PONTIFFicating Ruth Kelly.

159

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 15:53:53

#175

Hugh, you are talking a lot but essentially you agree with my position.

What I am a clearly saying is that HETEROSEXUAL couples can adopt if approved by the process they must subject themselves to.

HOMOSEXUAL couples would be denied that same adoption process (i.e. right to do so) if the church in Scotland had its way.

Now I really don't care much how you or anyone elses wishes to word that blatant inequality but if someone is denying me the right to do something (apply to foster) based on my sexuality then that is plainly someone's attempt to deny me of an EQUAL RIGHT.

Therefore this IS an issue of EQUAL RIGHTS.

160

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 16:07:19

Ruth Kelly is a Catlick Fundie - she should be treated with with the same disdain as the bearded Fundies in the middle east.

161

JG,

Fife 21/01/2007 16:08:23

#176 Jock
OK, if you like!!!!

162

eric,

21/01/2007 16:08:41

stigma

163

Derick fae Yell,

21/01/2007 16:12:36

Having worked in Homelessness, ANY stable loving adoptive family, whatever their orientation, is infinitely preferable to state 'Care'. The number of kids coming out of 'Care' who end up homeless is shocking.

There are some pure mad comments on this thread. Like the swimming pool theme (in a sort of 'Jings! Crivvins help may Boaby, what sort of drugs is this guy on??!!??).

164

bill, england,

21/01/2007 16:17:23

170. Lumber Jack, Fife

"Why do "we have a right to know"?What difference does it make to this debate?"

What debate?

165

eric,

21/01/2007 16:20:32

Och im away to the Flying handbag For a pint.

166

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 16:20:40

Test questions
1) If gay couples want to adopt they should have access to a specialist adoption service which takes full account of the specific support needs of gay adoptive parents and the children
2)This service should be provided by the state just like specialist AIDS services for gay people
Discuss and reveal your basic assumpions

167

JG,

Fife 21/01/2007 16:22:15

#184 Sage
I thought those specialist AIDS services were available for drug users and heterosexuals too?

168

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 16:22:50

#184

You truly are an idiot ...

What relevance do your moronic scribbles have to this issue?

169

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 16:23:42

#185

The fastest growing group in 2006 who used HIV related services were heterosexuals ...

170

GW,

Aberdeenshire 21/01/2007 16:25:00

Hi Jeff 177

If I understand the story properly, Ruth Kelly wants to have a "proposed exemption enabling faith-based agencies to refuse to place children with gay couples."

In other words, gay couples would still be entitled to go through adoption processes, and adopt. However, faith-based agencies would be able to make judgements based on what they believe to be in accordance with their beliefs.

Are you saying that people who have religious beliefs that make them come to the view that the best home for a child is likely to be with a married heterosexual couple, should be forced to act against these beliefs?

So much for religions trying to impose what they believe on everyone else - it appears to now be the exact opposite!

171

JG,

Fife 21/01/2007 16:27:00

#187 Jeff
I'm wi' you Jeff! I was trying to point out to sage HIV services were for those who were affected by the disease, not just homosexuals!

172

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 16:37:58

No - even 'faith-based' agencies should not be allowed to discriminate because that is what it is - discrimination.

It is the same as saying that a guesthouse should be allowed to refuse blacks or asians or gay's because they do not agree with their religion/sexuality.

Discrimination is discrimination and having an opt-out clause and somehow saying that this is acceptable legitamises their discrimination. If a sect (i.e. Church of Scotland, faith-based agency) wish to promote discrimination, lies and hatred that is their right but they should not be able to participate in any public arena such as adoption and other legislative matters. I see little difference between organisations such as they BNP and the Church of Scotland - they both spread lies and hate.

You may not like a gay or black person etc - it does not give you the right to deny them a service if you are an organisation or business.

Your innacurate last sentence is either made with ignorance or intent ... either way equal rights is not "imposing" - it is as it says EQUAL RIGHTS.

173

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 16:41:53

As our society becomes more secular - more and more of these sky pixy followers try to impose their "values" on us.

174

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 16:47:45

~189
Thanks Stu .. I got that ;-)

175

nolimits,

High Level, Canada 21/01/2007 16:50:06

To "all" prospective adopting parents
'Nil Carborundum Illigitimus'

176

GW,

Aberdeenshire 21/01/2007 16:52:41

Hi Jeff

I believe in equal rights but I believe these should apply to everyone. It appears that the only group that can be insulted, ridiculed or discriminated against are faith groups - that is wrong. Either we ALL get equal rights or they do not exist.

177

Angus Mor,

God's Own Island 21/01/2007 17:00:50

And white middle class tax paying males GW

178

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:01:25

I do not think that faith groups are the only group that can be insulted.

As a gay man I have grown up listening to abuse directed at gay men all my life - it seems fair game to call gay's everything that takes someone's fancy. Now I don't really care what people call me - it is their right.

So long as I can through the mud back then that is ok.

What is NOT acceptable is legislation that discriminates and that is what the Church of Hateland (Scotland) want.

179

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 17:01:28

In effect, Jeff 191, you are stubbornly insisting that secular values are imposed on millions of people despite it being contrary to their beliefs.

I'm all for live and let live, but resent the views of others being imposed on me. I feel sure millions of others feel the same way. You see....it's wrong. It's intolerant.

I guess you might resent Christianity, Islam, Judaism being imposed on you, as they are alien to you.

Guess what?

I resent secular values being imposed on me, as there are many aspects which sicken me.

There was a time our beautiful wee country wsa plagued by anti Catholic bigotry of masses who said they were Protestants. Thankfully that cancer is dying out, slowly.

However, it is being replaced by a new, more virulent strain of bigotry and badness: intolerant secularism.

180

bill, england,

21/01/2007 17:04:05

170. Lumber Jack, Fife

"Why do "we have a right to know"?What difference does it make to this debate?"

What debate?

181

bill, england,

21/01/2007 17:04:29

dubbert?

182

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 17:05:27

197,

surely it's wrong that your response to the bigotry you've encountered is to participate in bigotry?

Your homosexuality is not for me.
My Christianity is not for you.
I despise bigotry against homosexuals, like you.
Jeff, I despse bigotry against Christians too.

Do you think we could get to a position that respects the rights of others.

You do your homosexuality.
I do my Christianity.
Both despite the bigots.

Then, why do you want to impose aliwn views on me?

183

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 17:05:32

"I resent secular values being imposed on me, as there are many aspects which sicken me. "

Stop being an idiot, secular values are the default - they cannot be imposed on anyone.

Its you sky pixy weirdos who wish to impose their bigoted values on others.

184

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 17:08:32

186 Several posters have made reference to difficulties which the adopted children of gay couples could have in school and in the community -specialist adoption agencies could help couples in this category anticipate these difficulties.Further you will surely be aware that before being selected as suitable adoptive parents robust sreening procedures have to be implemented -this is possibly best conducted by a specialist agency-this means additional costs .I asked the question -raised in many professional circles to which I belong -whether there should be a specialist set od adoption agencies estblished for gay couples wishinhg to adopt.Do you understand now??
On the same basis in the early 1980s when heroin addiction and HIV infection was spreading in our main cities gay activist groups succeeded in establishing a number of specialist health /counselling services for gay persons who had HIV infecetion or were at risk.There were arguments that this was not proper use of NHS/SE resources to the effect that gay people should use mainstream services
Should there be specialist adoption agencies -state funded -to cater for the implications of the recent legislative change ??
Do you undertsand the question which relates directly to the general theme of the above article?
Why do you think you can call anyone an idiot -give us a full accoun of the workings of your mind in the form of well reasoned arguments or are you just prone to bluster and insult -concealing whatever you want to hide?

185

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:09:32

~201

Fight fire with fire ... Fight ignorance with education

I do not seek to IMPOSE my sexuality on YOU - I only ask for the same civil rights and opportunities that you do as a HETEROSEXUAL CHRISTIAN.

You really make a mockery of your postings if you cannot see that.

Why would you want to deny me the same rights that others enjoy?

186

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:15:03

#203

I won't even attempt to argue against such irrational postings as your own.

The whole implication of your postings is to lie and spread misinformation and attempt to set gays aside as some sort of group demanding/needing special treatment.

This is of course untrue and their are hundreds of examples of heterosexuals using public funds for their 'special treatment'. As a gay man in a long term relationship paying the highest rate of taxes I do not start singling out heterosexual couples who get free state funded education for their four kids etc. at my expense.

In a society that is supposed to be caring it is individuals like yourself who seek to set themselves up as the right and only feel good when categorising another group as less worthy of equal rights and respect.

187

Centurion2,

glasgow 21/01/2007 17:18:54

#142

Helen may well be a practising Catholic, but she cannot at the same time be a practising homosexual.

All the Abrahamic faiths, i.e around one-third of the total world population, deplore extra-marital sexual activity, heterosexual or otherwise, so why should homosexuals consider themselves or be considered by others, to be victimised in some way?

188

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 17:19:29

absoluely-this was precisely the case in Edinburgh when the drug/Hiv infection exploded in the 1980s -we were operating on the basis of a 5:1 ratio of infected person -one gay person to five drug users (IVDM) however the distribution of funds from Scottish Office and others resources were granted disproportionately in favour of the gay community.The principal advocate at the time for gay men interests was an extremely able QC who was very articulate in registering concerns on their behalf>The drug user groups were more direct and less considered in their contact with the" eminent "MIchael Forsyth.The most needy group lost out is my point and perhaps the funnelling of funds into the specialist services was a mistake because it depleted the money pot

189

Tory_and_proud,

Guildford Surrey 21/01/2007 17:21:33

If it is a mothers right to have an abortion then its a mothers right to be able to choose to have their baby adopted by Catholic parents.

I've nothing against gay people, I simply think the mother should have the option of giving the baby to a Catholic family if they so wish.

Taking away mothers rights is a kind of baby stealing.

Tory_and_proud

190

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:22:25

#206

Wake up please and try to live like a decent human being who believes in treating people with dignity, respect and equality.

Your dark-ages state of mind and hocus pocus religious based hysteria makes you look unbalanced!

191

Sambo,

The deep south 21/01/2007 17:25:19

#164, Eve.
It's a straw parliament, it always has since devolution. This was an appeasement by labour to (throw a bone) to Scotland.
Sure they pass little laws and can control some taxation but Westminster has the final say.

192

GW,

21/01/2007 17:27:07

Stoo, 202

"Secular values can't be imposed on anyone."

They are being imposed increasingly all the time. Once upon a time, people were forced not to work on Sundays. Now it has gone the other way - I had a friend who was working 6 days a week but got sacked when he refused to work Sundays as he went to church every Sunday morning. That's what I call 'imposing secular values'!

By the way, someone is not an 'idiot' if they happen to disagree with you.

193

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:27:46

#210

All the more reason to vote SNP in May

194

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:28:26

#211

They are an idiot if what they are spouting is garbage!

195

chics311,

florida usa 21/01/2007 17:29:00

Why do you let a tiny minority of gays.[is it 3% of the population] cause such consternation and unrest in Scotland with ther demands for rights ,most of which they already have,its because they are organised and have an agenda most of which is the antithesis of main stream thought in Scotland.The people dont speak up and the pandering P.C. politicians give in to the gays outrageous demands. Wake up folks and preserve the country from the perverted demands of 3% of the population.

196

GW,

21/01/2007 17:30:15

Jeff, 209

"try to live like a decent human being who believes in treating people with dignity, respect and equality"

How about treating people of faith with 'dignity and respect' rather than just insulting them.

197

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 17:31:15

"By the way, someone is not an 'idiot' if they happen to disagree with you."

They are when the idiot in question is the bigot Pex Vobascum.

198

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:32:05

#215

Perhaps when you do the same instead of your attempts at demonising gays I will conside showing you some of that respect.

You can't have it both ways my dear friend ;-)

199

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 17:32:34

"They are being imposed increasingly all the time. Once upon a time, people were forced not to work on Sundays. Now it has gone the other way - I had a friend who was working 6 days a week but got sacked when he refused to work Sundays as he went to church every Sunday morning. That's what I call 'imposing secular values'!"

Nothing to do with secular values and everything to do with poor employment law and employers.

200

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:35:41

#214

And so enters a religious nut job from the USa who probably thinks Bush is an ok guy and that thoise damned queers get everything they deserve.

Isn't it just laughable when gay men and lesbians fight for their equal rights - because that is all they are askig for after all - the bigots start using words such as an agenda (agenda is such a lovely word - means nothing really but it's emotive tone instills fear in people).

BTW - those tiny proportion as you like to call it are not causing 'unrest' .. in the UK we do not like to behave in such an uncivilised fashion as the USA - which has more hate groups in it than the whole of the Western World put together.

Don't you have some guns in your cupbaord to go and polish!?

201

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 17:36:23

203 Why do gay persons need specialist health care provision when NHS resources are scarce in relation to the needs of other groups in our society?
There is a professional argument which would say that if you provide specialist services you create professional ghettoes and marginalise the recipient group.Further you impede the training of mainstream service staff since they have limited contact with the target group -so that gay people may in fact get an inferior service.I am simply rehearsing arguments which are conducted on a daily basis in clinics,NHS management offices and in the Executive -nothing new,pal, just reality -services,resources and cash-and how to spread them around >your petula nce does a great dis service to the most reasonable of gay folk with whom I work each day.Let me tell you some stories about access to kidney machines in rural areas,drugs for children with certain life threatening
conditions ets ets perhaps not, this would be an act of discriminatiing against you perhaps if I demand services for them -someone usually loses out.I do not spread mis information -even the noted QC in question(see 207) agreed with me in terms of the equity of distribution of funds

202

GW,

Aberdeenshire 21/01/2007 17:36:29

Jeff 217,

Please quote anything I have posted that has demonised gays. I think your comment is unfair.

203

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 21/01/2007 17:40:13

To the person who wrote the crap about the gays in the swimming pool....as a child I had more men...probably a collection of pedophiles and pervs...attempt to assault me....expose their genitals to me and attempt to lure me into a vehicle than I can begin to remember. I was not a wee boy I can assure you.....my brothers.?...no attempted sexual assaults, flashing, luring into cars etc from women or men. I have shared many of my experiences with my female friends and we all have stories to tell...pervy friends fathers trying it on, same for step fathers.....men jumping out of bushes...attempted rapes....get a grip of yourself pal!

204

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:41:57

#203

Why do people with sickle cell health problems need specialist care?

Why do women with cervical cancer need specialist care (after all isn't it because they have too much sex!)?

Why do smokers need specialist health care services?

Of course the answer is not that these groups do NOT need specialist health care provision but it is the right thing to do for their health.

I am afraid Mr Sage is attempting to create a division/spread misinformation where none actually exists.

Bigots show themselves in many forms - you are not that well hidden I might add.

205

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 17:42:38

217- you really are all bluster or chust a wee laddie trying to stir..

206

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 17:45:12

"217- you really are all bluster or chust a wee laddie trying to stir.."

Ahhhh the old "wee laddie" defence.

207

Jock Scot,

21/01/2007 17:45:44

We are all ignoring the children's rights. Would an Asian boy or girl, being brought up by mothers or fathers with different religions and ethnic backgrounds be the subject of ridicule in the play grounds of our schools by a bigoted and racist society. I think so. Children are unfortunately brought up by parents less educated and liberally minded than on this post Think about the rights of the children. It seems every minority group have to come out shouting about their rights whether they want to exercise them or not.

208

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:46:03

#221

refer to your posting no: 188 - you are attempting to class gays as some sort of group that demands special rights when in fact they are simply asking for equal opportunities and rights that others take for granted.

209

Centurion2,

glasgow 21/01/2007 17:46:21

I have never in my life discriminated against anyone for any reason, but firmly believe that the rectum is designed solely for the expulsion of faeces , and any other use is contrary to Nature.

This is biology, not theology.

210

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:46:56

#224

meaningless post or what?

211

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:47:38

#226

"It seems every minority group have to come out shouting about their rights whether they want to exercise them or not."

So I take it you do not believe in equal rights then?

212

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:49:15

#228

Thank you for sharing your thoughts an anal sex ....

Does it mean that because you think those thoughts that bigotry, homophobia are ok and that equal rights should not be for everyone?

213

Pex Vobascum,

21/01/2007 17:51:17

204

Jeff, you're NOT imposing your sexuality on me....but you're imposing INTOLERANT SECULARISM on me.

Please dont.

214

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 17:53:19

I was referring specifically to the expensive specialist services set up for the gays persons covered in posts above-medical colleagues could not reach agreement that they required specialist services -in other words why did they require more than any other person with HIV-there isnt gay-specific HIV
The issue is that many of these services have now closed because of lack of demand (gay people opted for mainstream services) or predictably lack of cash and also evaluation of their effectiveness.Yu really are a daft" wee oor willie"-patronising ,too, such discernment -you can decipher homophobia just like that.!!Old,old ,old technique-"disagree with me and you are homophobic "-that is why so many folk here are getting so weary of this petted lip approach

215

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:54:02

#204

Please explain why EQUAL RIGHTS for all is somehow imposing (in your words) "INTOLERANT SECULARISM" on you.

216

Pex Vobascum,

21/01/2007 17:54:56

227

some of the rights homosexuals demand are impossible to grant.

eg homosexuals cannot get married.

217

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:56:23

#233

Every posting you have made is worded and toned with language that invites to debate but rather a loaded question scenario.

You are transparent and do not deserve to be taken seriously.

I have every respect for other people's views but when I smell a homophobic, itolerant rat I rather like to say it .

218

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:56:44

#227

Why?

219

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 17:57:14

Sorry that was for #235

Why cannot gay and lesbian couples be married?

220

ferco,

Scotland 21/01/2007 17:57:26

Interesting thought just occurred after reading some of the above- Is it a possible threat that a homosexual with aids has a child... this child may then catch HIV and develop into aids... I'm not 100% sure how the process works or develops so will not try to argue it but just to throw that up into the discussion- but I am starting to think that; Even though I don't personally like the whole "Gay" thing, I have nothing against "Gays" as long as they keep it to themselves; which on the most part they do; But I would rather see a child go to two loving fathers/mothers than wait in "care," with no-one.
Also I don't know where people get this idea that a "Gay" is more likely to be pedophiliac? I always picture it the other way around.

221

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 18:01:12

"some of the rights homosexuals demand are impossible to grant.

eg homosexuals cannot get married."

Marriage is a civil ceremony, you gawd botherers may wish to hijack it but under the law it has nothing to do with religion.

222

Centurion2,

glasgow 21/01/2007 18:02:25

#231

I have just re-read my previous post, and can find no reference to sex, anal or otherwise.

Perhaps a counsellor could help with your fixation.

223

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 18:04:38

#239 Ferco

Oh dear - I am dismayed that people with such ignorance exist.

HIV knows no boundaries - it truly believes in equality - it will infect anyone! HIV rates for the past several years been highest among heterosexuals.

Your comment about keeping it to themselves is hilarous - perhaps you could start writing scripts for an Alf Garnett comeback series!

224

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 18:06:47

234

I reckon you know the answer already.

225

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 18:07:32

238

by definition, marriage is the union of man and wife.

226

fiferjohn,

benbecula 21/01/2007 18:10:43

i am sorry but religion should not and does belong in politics and if she looks like is she should be stop.
second does this mean if the scottish parliment passes a law then westminister if it does not suit them they can repeal or change it then whats the point .once again we do not get a say.

227

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 18:10:57

In effect, Jeff, you are stubbornly insisting that secular values are imposed on millions of people despite it being contrary to their beliefs.

I'm all for live and let live, but resent the views of others being imposed on me. I feel sure millions of others feel the same way. You see....it's wrong. It's intolerant.

I guess you might resent Christianity, Islam, Judaism being imposed on you, as they are alien to you.

Guess what?

I resent secular values being imposed on me, as there are many aspects which sicken me.

There was a time our beautiful wee country wsa plagued by anti Catholic bigotry of masses who said they were Protestants. Thankfully that cancer is dying out, slowly.

However, it is being replaced by a new, more virulent strain of bigotry and badness: intolerant secularism.

228

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 18:11:22

238 Jeff calm down you are now beginning to ask yourself questions about rights.(204)It can be considered a confusuional state but I think you have simply misunderstood so many of these posts.Most of us are certainly not anti-gay ,we believe in the basic principles of equality but we do not want a certain brand of secularism imposed on us which is framed on the premise that no other rights can be taken into account.Green tea will calm the nerves -try it

229

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 18:12:06

#228 and 241

In your post 228 you said

"I have never in my life discriminated against anyone for any reason, but firmly believe that the rectum is designed solely for the expulsion of faeces , and any other use is contrary to Nature."

In the context of this debate and the anus. If not for the expulsion of faeces then what other 'contrary to nature' use do you mean if not sex.

If you are attempting to be smart - you are not doing a great job really are you ;-)

230

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 18:12:07

245

are you insisting that ALL those who profess a relgious belief should be excluded from representing us?

This would leave only intolerant seculars to rule.

231

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 18:13:24

242,

jeff, you're mistaken.

the GROWTH in HIV has been highest amongst heterosexuals, but HIV is significantly higher amongst homosexuals.

232

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 18:13:41

#243

Stop evading answering a simple question .. or can you not justify your bigotry and infantile outlook on life?

233

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 18:15:22

jeff,

apart from a few nutters (ignore them) no-one is denying your right to homosexuality.

the only intolerance here is yours.

you are intolerant of the christian values of others.

stop it, please.

you've been the victim of bigotry - today, you're the perpetrator.

234

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 18:16:50

#247

Attempting to cover up your homophobia with weak humour does not detract from the fact that your postings are biased and seek not to ask questions of why equality should not be available to all but rather to create more innacurate beliefs that gays ask for special rights.

I prefer homophobics to be out and out (excuse the pun) with their hatred rather than someone whithout the backbone to do it.

235

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 18:17:11

251

there's no need for that, jeff.

i think you know the answer to youyr question already.....and my previous posts give sufficient to answer anyway.

236

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 18:18:17

253, but jeff...the prime bigot here is you.

you are intolerant of christian views.

237

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 18:19:25

#252 Pex

Christianity preaches hatred and the uses for the contents of the bible (which I consider a book of fables) is more often used to persecute and create wars.

If you were paying attention to the content of the postings on here then you would realise that it is about equal rights.

I do not seek nor require your approval for my sexuality.

As I said before .. if you cannot taking stone throwing .. then stop throwing stones!

238

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 18:20:30

#254

Stop saying the same thing over and over again and answer a straight question - please otherwise you become very repetitive.

239

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 18:24:25

#255

I am intolerant of bigotry, hatred and inequality.

Which is what you are displaying on this website and labelling as christianity.

240

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 18:25:10

257
as oft as you repeat a question which you already know the answer, i will come back and tell you that you know the answer.

sorry.

it's called honesty.

241

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 18:26:20

256

so....you dont buy christianity. that's ok.

but is it OK if I do?

242

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 18:28:11

255,

you are intolerant of christian values.

you are the bigot.

243

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 18:28:29

#259

I have asked you a simple question. It seems you cannot or will not answer it. Your previous posts do not answer the question.

That is not honesty that is called evasion.

I am more than happy for you to be a practising christian.

I do object to you or any other christian claiming some moral high ground and right to deny me the same rights that you enjoy.

244

St Monance,

Canada 21/01/2007 18:29:09

The arguments against gays sharing a bed at a B&B or adopting a child are the same ones that were used against bi-racial couples in the 1950's. A loving couple should be a cherished asset in any society, the sound basis for a family and one that Christ's message of love for all endorses.

245

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 18:30:20

Ok - I am off to have some down time.

Be back to reply to any further posts later ;-)

246

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 18:31:33

Oh but before I go ... post #263 .... their speaks the voice of reason from possibly one of the most civilised societies on earth ...

Thanks whoever you are in St Monace ;-)

247

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 18:32:53

Jeff -you have not answered a single question
-you simply insult
-you have not made a single positive statement
If I ever had cause to cosider being homophobic you would give me some fine justification
Some soul searching is required -"gay rights has had its day ,reason is catching up " Nuriuvshy

248

fiferjohn,

benbecula 21/01/2007 18:39:45

# pex
no but they should not like this example because she is catholic she believes that gays are wrong in all aspects in live .as a result she should abstain from making or allowed to .question ???
what's to stop any politician on reglison or other believes enforcing it on to everybody by passing laws.

249

sage,

edinburgh 21/01/2007 18:43:14

peace perfect peace

250

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 18:46:06

Back again :-) Popped back to make coffee ...

#266

I have zero respect for someone who seeks to divide, lie and does not believe in equal rights.
That is you incase you missed it.

As for you considering being homophobic (too late - you passed that marker sometime ago), you are so enveloped in your hatred and superiority that you fail to recognise what you are.

Gay rights are are simply a label given by the media and those who seek to belittle what is essentially equal rights for all.

Something you and other for reasons best know to yourselves do not want homosexuals to have.

251

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 18:47:34

262,

jeff,

all the rights i have are available to you in exactly the same terms.

your problem is that you are trying to impose your values on others.

252

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 18:50:30

#270

Now they are .. but the point is your religious leaders opposed them and now wish to have them removed .. Such as right to adopt and have civil partnerships (blessings).

I assume you agree with the removal of those equal rights that you enjoy?

253

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 18:51:36

no, jeff, christian groups will allow YOU to have marriage and adoption under exactly the same terms as me.

254

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 18:53:03

267

silence only catholics then?

255

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 18:53:48

jeff,

not fancy answering 260?

256

Centurion2,

glasgow 21/01/2007 18:55:00

For people who like to be known as "gay", homosexuals do one helluva lot of moaning, and their grievances, real and imagined, receive a disproportionate airing, both in politics and the media, vis-a-vis other, larger, minorities.

257

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 18:59:21

#272

Perhaps you should listen more to your leaders and preachers of hate and intolerance ..

Cardinal Keith O'Brien
Cardinal compares gay unions to paedophilia
Dec 20, 2006
Cardinal Keith O’Brien made the statements in a speech at the Scottish InterFiath Leaders’ conference last month.

(PinkNews.co.uk19-December-2006) The Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh has been criticised for comparing same sex partnerships to paedophilia

Cardinal Keith O’Brien made the statements in a speech at the Scottish InterFiath Leaders’ conference last month, and then left without allowing himself to be challenges.

He has been criticised by Reverend Donald Reid of the Interfaith Council, The Scotsman reports.

He wrote in a letter to the clergyman, "Given that this was a meeting for interfaith dialogue, it is not good practice for a keynote speaker to make controversial or individual remarks, and then leave, effectively ensuring there was no opportunity to engage in wider discussion."

It comes after Tory councillor Peter Willows was charged with Public Order Offences last week in Brighton after comparing gay people to paedophiles at a council meeting.

258

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:00:18

275

they moan about their treatment, but are oft extremely intolerant themselves.

witness jeff's anti christian bigotry here.

he insists on his rights.....but insists mine are ignored.

259

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 19:02:05

"In effect, Jeff, you are stubbornly insisting that secular values are imposed on millions of people despite it being contrary to their beliefs. "

Gawd bothering is imposed on secular individuals - as previously stated secularism is the default position. The fact that you choose to brain wash and indoctrinate children with your bigotry Pex is something the courts should look at, its a form of child abuse.

260

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:02:19

276,

from the pink news, eh?

that's compelling evidence.

tell me something the cardinal said that was wrong.

261

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 19:03:28

#272

or perhaps

Gay Adoption Makes Children “Guinea Pigs in Some Distorted Social Experiment”
Jan 30, 2006

A decision by Scottish lawmakers to allow same-sex couples to adopt has been condemned by Roman Catholic prelate Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who warned that the measure would make Scotland’s orphans “guinea pigs in some distorted social experiment.”

EDINBURGH, January 16, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Cardinal has asked that Catholic adoption agencies be allowed a “conscience clause” to exempt them from the ruling, so as not to be forced to place children in homes with same-sex guardians. O’Brien is worried that Catholic adoption agencies would eventually be forced into placing children with same-sex couples.

Galloway Bishop John Cunningham, chair of the national committee for pastoral and social care, stated: “If the proposals go ahead as they stand, the bishops would certainly expect an exemption for faith-based adoption agencies,” according to a Times On Line report. “We are disappointed that the executive do not seem to have recognised the unique contribution that a stable married couple can make to the upbringing of children.

“We also have grave reservations concerning the ability of same-sex couples or unmarried heterosexual couples, however loving they might be, to provide the stability and the role models a married couple can,” he added.

The new law allows all unmarried couples – whether heterosexual or homosexual – the option of adoption. Earlier laws allowed one member of a non-married couple to apply to adopt a child, while the second member applied for a residency order. The UK outside of Scotland brought in a similar law allowing same-sex couples to adopt or foster a child in December.

262

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:03:28

stoo, is it ok if i choose to ignore you as a bit of a t!t1t?

plainly, like jeff, you are a good example of intolerant secularism.

263

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:03:47

t!t

264

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:05:00

272

so....the cardinal was spot on.

265

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 19:05:42

#280

You are a prime example of someone who when faced with facts .. i.e. the chief hate monger of the Scottish Catholics unleashes his homophobic tongue to his flock ... you on one hand agree with him.

Then say in another post # 272

"no, jeff, christian groups will allow YOU to have marriage and adoption under exactly the same terms as me."

Which do you believe in then?

266

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:05:53

jeff,

still not fancy 260?

third time of asking.

267

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:06:38

284,

both.

still not fancy 260?

268

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:07:17

284

no homophobia.

just common sense.

269

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 19:07:19

#Pex

Let's just say you are a proud, hateful, catholic, bigot who believes in his supremacy .. a bit like the nazis.

That is exactly how I see your kind.

270

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:07:41

time out jeff.

260 answer, please.

271

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:08:17

jeff

Let's just say you are a proud, hateful, homosexual, bigot who believes in his supremacy .. a bit like the nazis.

That is exactly how I see your kind.

272

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:08:35

260 please.

273

radical theologian,

california 21/01/2007 19:08:58

Whether we like it or not, if faith groups were to withdraw all their social services, the government would be unable to cope - whether in Scotland or England.

274

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 19:08:59

"stoo, is it ok if i choose to ignore you as a bit of a t!t1t?"

Go ahead bigot, its what most of you gawd botherers do when faced with facts.

275

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:09:03

so....you dont buy christianity. that's ok.

but is it OK if I do?

276

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:09:33

how did the world start, stoo?

277

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 19:12:59

#285 - once again you are not paying any attention

I answered post 260 in my post 262!!

278

Stewarty,

21/01/2007 19:16:46

Puttting aside constitutional considerations, Ruth Kelly needs to understand that she cannot have a bob each way. The woman needs to decide whether her faith is sufficiently strong to override political considerations.

This is not the first time she has been noted with her bloomers around her ankles on the issue of gay rights. Either she is against gay rights (in which case she should tender her resignation as a Minister of State who supposedly supports said gay rights) or she is for them (in which case she should abandon any notion of allegiance to what her faith tells her). She cannot have it both ways.

Do I detect a whiff of hypocrisy in the air?

Likewise Mr Bliar and his unfortunate (for him) wife. They too are practicing Catholics and yet both are supposedly very much pro-gay rights. Indeed, the wretched Cherie attaches herself to the gay rights cause on a regular basis when she puts on her wig in court.

Is it little wonder that the UK is fed up with the bunch of hypocrites emanating from the Labour circle?

And then there is the constitutional question raised by Kelly's blunder but I'll leave that to others to debate..........

279

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:17:06

296

Great.

Then you'll not mind if I - and millions of other Christians - live my life my\our life by Christian values?

280

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:17:54

Stewarty 297

need other politicaisn make the same choice, or is it just Ruth you have a problem with?

281

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 19:18:31

"how did the world start, stoo?"

Big bang.

282

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:18:52

btw, jeff, the christian amendment doesnt stop you and raymond from adopting a wee boy.

283

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:19:29

300

when was that?

284

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 19:21:14

#298

I have also answered that in post #262 in which I said


"I am more than happy for you to be a practising christian.

I do object to you or any other christian claiming some moral high ground and right to deny me the same rights that you enjoy."

QUESTION FOR YOU: Will you stop supporting homophobic, bigots (the Scottish Catholic church for example) whose head preaches hatred and singles out one group for his own hang-ups and allow MILLIONS of gay men to lead our lives without your unwanted and unrequested intrusions and condemnations?

285

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:23:18

303

So.....you DO object to me living my life by Christian values I, and millions of others espouse?

286

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:24:34

303

Second part of your post makes no sense whatsoever.

Just looks like the tired rant of an intolerant secular.

287

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 19:25:07

"when was that?"

More than 6,000 years ago.

288

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 19:25:31

Isn't it normally the case that if I ask you a question first that you would answer it first before expecting an answer yourself to a later question?

Or in your world - do you simply choose to ignore what suits you and expect an answer to your questions?

You should perhaps think of signing up to be a spokesperson for the frock wearing Cardinal Keith O’Brien!!!

289

fiferjohn,

benbecula 21/01/2007 19:27:08

#pex
it is all religion not just catholics perfect example the wee frees are trying to pass a bill to close every thing down on a Sunday no matter if you believe in it or not .so is it right that you lose your job or wages just to satisfy their believes. know that to me is infringemnet of your rights.

290

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:29:08

308

so....you want all religious out of parliament?

291

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 19:29:09

Anyone watch Stargate?

292

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:29:43

306

where?

293

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 19:29:46

Cmon Pex - please answer #307

294

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:30:29

307

do you have an english language version of 307?

295

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:31:05

310

no.

296

Angus Mor,

God's Own Island 21/01/2007 19:33:20

When are you going to adopt Jeff? I'm sure you'd make a great father/mother ;-)

297

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:33:51

303

So.....you DO object to me living my life by Christian values I, and millions of others espouse?

298

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 19:34:06

#314

Shame you would see the church set in the distant future

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ori_(Stargate)

The Ori are what most religions wuld like to see happen on earth.

299

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:34:29

no angus, raymond is the daddy.

300

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:35:15

317,

sorry jeff....let's not do star trek here.

301

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 19:35:39

#303

I refer you to post #307

Once again you ignore questions from other posters whilst asking more yourself.

You are repetitive and undemocratic - a bit like the Catholic church ;-)

302

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:35:58

303

So.....you DO object to me living my life by Christian values I, and millions of others espouse?

303

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:37:03

320

that'll be the 307 I can make no sense of?

something about you getting bitchy about a guy wearing a frock?

304

Martha,

21/01/2007 19:37:59

Not all religions are so doctrinaire about homosexuality. The more we know about this condition, the more it appears that homosexuality is born with the child. As for understanding human sexuality, we're just preparing to begin to commence to initiate scratching the surface.

In Canada, homosexual couples are allowed to adopt; and also in California and probably other states. (Adoption is under the purview of the separate states in the US.) So Scotland's allowing the same is hardly groundbreaking.

There are even, here in the USA, churches for homosexual people, where they can reconcile their sexuality with the tenets of Christianity without feeling left out or stigmatized. I for one am not going to condemn them nor am I going to call homosexual behavior a "sin" unless it is adulterous, lascivious, brutal, sadistic, or practised on minors, just like any other sexual activity.

There are homosexual couples who seriously want to adopt children to give them a home and to experience parenthood, which is a fundamental human need and right. Faith-based adoption agencies have a right to do what they please; but homosexuals, as in the case of civil marriages, pay taxes and therefore legally there is not a strong case against letting them adopt. They certainly can't do much worse than some hetero parents with abused, neglected, or abandoned or exploited natural children, based on what I see every day in all levels of society, and I do mean ALL.

Frankly, abortion is a much more bigger problem than homosexuality; when did Jesus ever speak out against homosexuals? As far as I'm concerned, it's just another non-issue. If the parent is caring and concerned and diligent, those should be the criteria for adoption.

--An Episcopalian in Florida--

305

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:38:03

jeff,

as a generality, your tolerance is not overwhelming......is it?

but....you whinge about how people treated you?

kettle\pan?

306

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 19:38:13

"So.....you DO object to me living my life by Christian values I, and millions of others espouse?"

Another non sequitur - carry on I have a bingo card to fill.

307

fiferjohn,

benbecula 21/01/2007 19:39:16

#309
what i am saying is religion and religious based policies have no place it only causes trouble.

308

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 19:39:33

#322

As we are ignoring each other's questions .. how about another one

Do you support the many gay priests in the Catholic Church in Scotland?

Certainly they seem to thrive in that environment

309

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 19:39:56

#326

Could not agree more

310

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:39:57

323 good post, martha.

the homosexual act is, by definition, outside marriage, and therefore fornication and sinful.

311

Angus Mor,

God's Own Island 21/01/2007 19:40:38

The easy answer of course Jeff is to start your own religion based on your own beliefs. It can also help you avoid paying council tax if you register your house/flat as a place of worship.

What would the fundamentals of your new religion? Faith based? Science based? Sexuality based?

312

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:41:48

326

so....by you are religious allowed in politics or not?

earlier on you were excluding them.

__________________________________________

oh, and i dont thinik people who've been to garden fetes should allow that to influence their politics.

or those who have been to marks & spencers.

313

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:42:56

330

if he does start a religion, he'll object when people tell him he CANNOT live by it.

Ironic, cos right here, he's telling me I cannot live by my faith.

314

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:43:47

327

name them.

315

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:45:55

333

whilst you're fudging an answer to 333, jeff, let me tell you that i support all homosexuals in their work.

if that's a priest\minister\rabbi thats fine by me.

316

Martha,

21/01/2007 19:46:26

You know, in any democratic country there is absolutely NO LAW preventing a homosexual from becoming a parent, whether male or female. Females of course can manage the situation easily; males can pay or coax some woman to have the child for them. But in either case, it's easy enough to do.

That being the case, then why are homosexual couples put on the spot when they want to adopt a child who is otherwise unwanted? These are mature adults who thoughtfully undertake a long and difficult process-- namely, adopting a child-- and are willing to put out the money and jump through all the legal hoops.

Their reasons are no more frivolous than any other adoptive parent's (I'm thinking of Mia Farrow, for instance, who lived with a very quirky man while adopting innumerable children, and he ended up marrying one of them as we all know). Some court approved THOSE adoptions-- compared to that menage, a nice respectable person who happens to be homosexual would look very pale to me if I were an adoption case worker.

317

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 19:46:52

#323

Martha please consider your language I find it offensive to be referred to as a "condition" ....

What gives you the right for anyone to judge me? Their are gay churches in the UK, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Soth Africa etc etc

These are more civilised people who realise that people like Pex belong in their own hate filled churches and are happy to leave them behind.

318

Jock Scot,

21/01/2007 19:47:37

Jeff and Pex... exchange phone numbers and get a room boys!

319

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:47:59

335, another good post martha.

there's nothing in scotland to stop jeff and raymond from adopting a wee boy.

even WITH the christian amendment being discysesd here, jeff can STILL adopt if he wants.

320

Martha,

21/01/2007 19:48:08

Well then, Pex, what if they ARE married?

321

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:48:10

* discussed.

322

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:48:32

339

who?

323

Angus Mor,

God's Own Island 21/01/2007 19:48:52

Could you explain what a "gay church" is Jeff?

324

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:49:23

336

no hatred in my church.

325

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 19:50:16

Pex - it's about time you admitted that your church is for hateful and repressed puritans with nothing better to do with their lives than look for someone to target their hate-filled souls with.

I don't hate you for it - I pity your for it :-)

326

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:50:23

337

errrr....no thanks. eeeeeeeyuch.

327

Harry Carnie,

British Columbia, Canada 21/01/2007 19:50:52

All these comments..In General..Very high
INTELLIGENCE , SOPHISTCATION, and ACCEPTANCE, of what is a normal occurence in the human animal(homosexuality)
If the Scottish people have this much common sense in other areas..Possibly Scotland COULD DO BETTER with independence.

328

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:51:20

344

no pity required.

no hate in my church.

just love.

329

Martha,

21/01/2007 19:51:57

Pex, I am aware of the Ten Commandments and the great Commandment of Christ as the bases of my religion, but nowhere in the Ten Commandments is homosexuality addressed. As for Jesus, he said we were to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves; on this is based ALL the Law and the prophets. That's straight from the Savior's mouth. He pardoned the adulteress and told people: "Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

So, where do you get off pronouncing homosexuality as a sin? You would seem to be defying Christ Himself.

330

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 19:52:05

#342

It is a church which has been set up by homosexuals who tired of being told they cannot possibly be gay and a child of god have decided to worship him in their own church - free from persecution.

331

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:52:19

346

broad acceptance of homosexual and homosexuality here.

332

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:53:21

349

you're nuts.

only YOU persecuting here tonight.

only YOU intolerant.

333

Centurion2,

Glasgow 21/01/2007 19:53:36

#297

Tony Blair is not a Catholic, practising or otherwise.

334

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:54:01

348

thou must not commit adultery/

335

Angus Mor,

God's Own Island 21/01/2007 19:54:06

Are they "gay only" Jeff?

Don't think I'm having a go at you mate, I'm finding your comments entertaining to say the least!

336

GW,

21/01/2007 19:55:01

Hi Martha,

323 you say "The more we know about this condition, the more it appears that homosexuality is born with the child."

I'd like to see some evidence for this claim. From what I've read, scientists have been unable to isolate the gene or genes responsible for homosexuality.

337

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:55:16

348

My teaching is that fornication is a sin.

the homosexual act is, by definition, fornication.

338

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 21/01/2007 19:55:27

228.....try telling that to all of the heterosexual women and men who indulge in a regular basis.

339

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 19:55:44

#351

Pex - I think most posters on this board who come across as reasoned and balanced individuals see you as a bit of a loose cannon.

I find you amusing ... you are a stereo-typical 'sun-reader' type christian (interpret that as you wish).

340

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:56:59

358

how interesting to see you think you have a mandate to speak for "most posters on this board".

when was this honour conferred on you?

341

spider68,

Australia 21/01/2007 19:58:09

I'm a lesbian Christian (yes, I know that to many that's an oxymoron) but I can see both sides quite clearly. The difference is that a child's rights are at stake. They have the right to two parents of different sex. How else are they to grow up free to choose for themselves? No matter how we balance their upbringing by adding "significant males" (or females) to their lives it isn't the same. Forget religious choice, forget politics, remember the child!

342

fiferjohn,

benbecula 21/01/2007 19:58:59

#pex
i am not religious any any way shape and form .i have the respect for anybody for beliefs but not when they try and ram it down everybodies throat and that is why I beleive it has no place in politics . i take it you have a strong religious belive i respect that but it causes trouble when it is brought into politics all you have to do is look at the middle east.

343

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:59:12

jeff

333?

answer, please?

344

Martha,

21/01/2007 19:59:19

Adultery (think of Prince Charles and Camilla, both married to decent people, both boinking each other at every opportunity) is one thing; intercourse before marriage, or after it, is quite another and is hardly such a horrible thing.

Far worse than the sins of the flesh is the sin of pride, which leads mortals to think they are better than others because they follow this or that religion, or are in a position to tell someone else about what a sinner that person is. You are no better than the muslims who take it upon themselves to kill people who are suspected of adultery, or even innocent flirtation.

God told us what sin is-- ten of the Commandments-- and that we should avoid doing them. Christ came to forgive us when we fall. Sorry, but you're way off base theologically.

345

Centurion2,

Glasgow 21/01/2007 19:59:28

#297

Cherie Blair and many other barristers put on their wigs and defend murderers, robbers, paedophiles etc.

Why is it hypocrisy for her to do her job on behalf of homosexuals?

346

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 19:59:48

361

so....kick religious out of politics?

347

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 20:01:03

Bottom line for me is that no church going puritan will ever convince me that I am a sinful human being.

I help my neighbours and treat those who respect me with equal amounts of respect.

Those who attempt to use the bible and religion to condemn others who are not of their ilk are the same as the recent mad man of Islam who think Westerners are evil and deserve to die.

They are a few notches up the scale of lunancy and danger. I seriously believe that some of the posters (Pex/GW) need psychiatric care to help them adjust to modern life.

348

Stewarty,

21/01/2007 20:01:06

Pex Vobascum 299
I have an intense dislike of all hypocrites, regardless of political hue.

349

Martha,

21/01/2007 20:01:27

Spider68-- And then we're confronted with the reality of hetero parents who have a homosexual child, whom they can't accept and don't understand.

Until science clarifies this condition somewhat better, I say that the moral thing to do is to treat our homosexual brethren as we would like to be treated, which is what Christ said to do, with no exceptions.

350

,

21/01/2007 20:01:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 305036, Article id was mapped to record!
351

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 20:02:12

#364

Are you classing homosexuals the same as murderers, robbers, paedophiles etc.

352

Angus Mor,

God's Own Island 21/01/2007 20:02:20

Jeff

Do us all a favour and list all the greatest homosexuals in the world and their contribution. I'll kick off - Oscar Wilde -literary genius.

353

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:03:52

Stewarty 367

great..

so.....need other politicians make the same choice, or is it just Ruth you have a problem with?

how about a son of the manse?

354

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 20:04:07

#371

What has this got to do with debate about adoption and gays?

355

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:05:25

jeff?

333?

356

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 20:06:51

"the homosexual act is, by definition, outside marriage, and therefore fornication and sinful."

My gawd this loon (Pox) has a problem with all sex.

357

Martha,

21/01/2007 20:06:59

Jeff in Dundee; we are ALL sinful beings, all frail and flawed. You don't need to look very far to see that humans spend a lot of time hurting each other in ways large and small.

But there is hope, and we all have the ability to do better, if we will only exercise it.

358

Angus Mor,

God's Own Island 21/01/2007 20:07:06

The world would be a sadder place without them and therefore it amplifies the fact that homosexuals have secured a place in society along side thier hetro counterparts, much to the angst ofPex etc.

Clear enough? Could draw you a picture if you like?

359

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 20:07:25

Pex?

666?

360

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:07:28

366

errr....jeff....i didnt say you were a sinful human being.

remember?

i preached tolerance.

you were dead against.

you denied me the right to practice muy religion.

i supported your right to homosexuality.

361

maestra,

21/01/2007 20:07:57

Pex-formerly-Pax:

Catholicism (or religious identification and practice of any kind) is a "lifestyle choice" (to use words with which I am sure you will be familiar).

Sexuality is not. One is born with it. One can choose whether or not to be sexual or be celibate, but one's sexuality should not prevent him or her from adopting.

There - is that clear?

362

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:08:20

378

hey jeff.....good avoidance tactic.

innovative.

great!

well done!

now, how about an answer to 333?

363

GW,

21/01/2007 20:08:36

Martha 348

You say - "He pardoned the adulteress and told people: "Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

You missed out the next bit. Jesus then said to the woman "go forth and sin no more."

I wouldn't want you to give the impression that Jesus accepted how she was living her life. He wanted her to live differently.

364

Calum Crubag,

21/01/2007 20:08:45

Funny how the Catholic church is against bigotry when it's the victim but is too ready to deal it out against others. Opus Dei have a shameful record of extremism - it support fascist Franco in Spain.

Death to religion!

365

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:09:23

380

great stuff.

i entirely agree.

that's why i've been supporting jeff's right to homosexuality.

366

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 20:09:49

LIST OF SOME WELL AND LESS WELL KNOWN GAYS, AND LESBIANS

FEMALE

Sappho, Greek poet (600 B.C.)

Queen Christina, Swedish ruler (1626-1689)

Madame de Stael, French author (1766-1817)

Emily Dickinson, American poet (1830-1886)

Willa Cather, American author (1873-1947)

Gertrude Stein, American author (1874-1946)

Virginia Woolf, British author (1882-1941)

Vita Sackville-West, British author (1892-1962)

MALE

Zeno, Greek philosopher (500 B.C.)

Sophocles, Greek playwright (496?-406 B.C.)

Socrates, Greek philosopher (470?-399 B.C.)

Aristotle, Greek philosopher (384-322 B.C.)

Alexander the Great, Macedonian ruler (356-323 B.C.)

Emperor Hadrian, Roman ruler (76-138 A.D.)

Richard the Lion-Hearted, British ruler (1157-1199)

Richard II, British ruler (1367-1400)

Leonardo da Vinci, painter-scientist (1452-1519)

Benvenuto Cellini, Italian goldsmith (1500-1571)

Christopher Marlowe, British playwright (1564-1593)

King James I, British ruler (1566-1625)

John Milton, British poet (1608-1674)

Jean Baptiste Lully, French composer (1632-1687)

Frederick the Great, Prussian ruler (1712-1786)

King Gustav III, Swedish ruler (1746-1792)

Baron Alexander von Humboldt, German naturalist (1769-1859)

Lord Byron, British poet (1788-1824)

Hans Christian Andersen, Danish author (1805-1875)

Walt Whitman, American poet (1819-1892)

Samuel Butler, British author (1835-1902)

Algernon Swinburne, British poet (1837-1909)

Petr Ilich Tchaikovsky, Russian composer (1840-1893)

Paul Verlaine, French poet (1844-1896)

Oscar Wilde, Irish playwright (1854-1900)

Frederick Rolfe (Baron Corvo), British author (1860-1913)

Andre Gide, French author (1869-1951)

Marcel Proust, French author (1871-1922)

E. M. Forster, British author (1879-1970)

John Maynard Keynes, British economist (188

367

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 20:10:29

For a more exhaustive list

http://www.niulib.niu.edu/lgbt/famous_names.html

368

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:10:48

383

oh....here we go....drop all other religions....let's just go for a session of catholic church baiting.

nice.

still....it is scotland...though i thought it was 2007 rather than 1707.

369

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 20:11:14

"remember?

i preached tolerance. "

Pox, you're a card.

370

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:11:24

385

FANTASTIC!

WELL DONE!!!

371

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:11:50

388

you disagree?

evidence, please.

372

,

21/01/2007 20:12:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
373

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:12:39

386

Lovely!

Well done!

PS: STILL FRIGHTENJED OF 333?

374

Martha,

21/01/2007 20:12:51

Pex: fornication is indeed a sin, but really-- do you think that God in Heaven thinks it is as bad as pride?

Do you honestly believe He judges a young couple in love as being as sinful as a married man who cheats on his wife and causes the death of a marriage-- a distraught woman and confused, unhappy children, financial ruin for the people he leaves behind?

The married man has knowingly and deliberately taken a vow to be faithful; yet later on he becomes arrogant and lustful enough to believe that he is so special he need not pay attention to his marriage vows nor need he consider the very real rights and needs of his wife and children.

So... in the category of sin, a couple of kids making out in the park-- are they anywhere near the evil of this adulterous man? Hardly. I can see that very plainly, so I imagine the Almighty can too.

375

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 20:13:44

"you disagree?

evidence, please"

Your posts.

376

Angus Mor,

God's Own Island 21/01/2007 20:13:50

Well I never! A Nazi leader a homosexual?? And there was Hitler heavily into the occult to the point he claimed to own the spear the pierced Jesus's heart on the Cross and something that Hitler encouraged his subordinates to also believe in.

377

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 20:14:10

The most recent person in history who I admire greatly is Alan Turing who broke the Engima Code and possibly saved millions of lives for this country.

He was also an innocent and unpretentious gay man trying to live in a society that criminalised him.

In 1952 he revealed his homosexuality and was forced to participate in a humiliating treatment program, and was ever after regarded as a security risk.

His suicide in 1954 is in my opinion indicative of the hypocrisy which society will accept you as a hero but if you happen to be gay they criminalise you.

378

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:15:03

393 truly illuminating.

and specifically/

379

Martha,

21/01/2007 20:15:51

This is the first I've heard of the poet Milton being homosexual, but I'm not able to prove otherwise. He did have children, however.

380

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:16:01

395

soooooooooo impressive!

now, jeff, 333?

or are you still scared?

been lying, jeff?

381

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:16:26

397

many homosexuals have children.

382

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 20:16:35

#394

The Roehm Affair and Persecution of Homosexuals
The leadership of the Nazi Party included at least one avowed homosexual, Ernst Roehm. He was a member of Hirschfeld's League for Human Rights and openly attended homosexual meeting places. Between 1933 and 1934, Roehm was the leader of the SA (Stormtroopers) and, before the death of Hindenberg in 1934, he was a potential challenger to Hitler's supremacy. With the Nazis' rise to power came an attack from Germany's political left. Attempts were made to discredit Hitler and the Nazis. One of their arguments was the charge of homosexuality in the Nazi ranks. Hitler's old friend Roehm was one of their main targets.

Interestingly, one of Roehm's principal defenders was Heinrich Himmler. He articulated the belief that accusations against Roehm were the work of Jews who feared the SS and were trying to discredit the movement. The mood of the party, and of Himmler, changed, however, when Hitler decided in 1934 that Roehm was a threat to his authority. Specifically, Hitler feared that Roehm was attempting to turn the SA (at this time, over 2 million strong) into a militia and was planning a military challenge to Hitler. While there is no evidence that such a plan existed, Hitler ordered a purge. On June 30, 1934, Roehm, many of his supporters, and over 1,000 of Hitler's political and personal enemies, were murdered in the famous "Night of the Long Knives." While the purge was politically motivated, the justification given for it was the homosexuality of Roehm and several of his associates in the SS command.

Himmler, who had once defended Roehm, assumed leadership of the SS and, in the process, also assumed the role of ridding the movement and Germany of homosexuals. In the wake of the Roehm execution, Hitler ordered the registration of homosexuals and the Gestapo was charged with the responsibility of creating dossiers on homosexuals and other "asocials" in the Third Reich.

383

bill, england,

21/01/2007 20:17:30

360. spider68, Australia

"I'm a lesbian Christian (yes, I know that to many that's an oxymoron)"

Not at all. There is room in Christ's kingdom for everybody, regardless or race, gender, sexual persuasion or any other discrimination.

"Suffer little children to come unto me" There is no reason why any human being or household should not rear children, provided always that the interests of the child come first.

Every person in the land is subject to scrutiny in this respect, and I see no reason why anyone should be barred from giving a child a home.

I speak as a committed and practising Christian, father, and grandfather.

384

Martha,

21/01/2007 20:17:47

Angus Mor: surely you jest. The Nazi army was riddled with homosexuals; this is a bit of well-known military history.

As for the Spear-- Hitler, an anti-Christian, nevertheless did not hesitate to make use of Christian superstitions and beliefs to further his evil ends. The Nazi army belt buckles were stamped with "Gott Mitt Uns."

385

John B Dick,

Rothesay 21/01/2007 20:18:04

This weeks contribution to the independence debate from New Labour. Just a little one this time but good to know they arn't missing a week.

There are two views of history, the conspiracy and the cock-up. This government has form. Put it in that context.

I'd better go and learn the words of "Flower of Scotland" now.

386

Martha,

21/01/2007 20:19:02

Good for you, Bill. I agree with you. Sexual preference is not in itself a reason not to grant adoption.

387

Angus Mor,

God's Own Island 21/01/2007 20:19:40

Oh aye, thanks for that Jeff. Very interesing stuff indeed!

BTW, there are lots of homosexuals who have had kids and got married but probably did so as homosexuality was frowned upon. Hopefully and eventually, it will be a norm in society and they won't have to pretend anymore. Must have been awful pretending and indulging in "practices" that ran against thier own grain.

388

bill, england,

21/01/2007 20:19:41

missed the trippert

389

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 20:19:45

# pex

You have shown yourself to be immature, uneducated, all over the place in your stance and .. now just repetitive and boring.

You have refused to answer many questions I have put to you - so please now consider yourself ignored.

Their are others on this website who disagree with me and at the same time have the itelligence to do so in any informative and adult like manner.

I would rather reply to them than waste my time on you.

390

GW,

21/01/2007 20:19:50

Jeff 366

I don't really believe you think I need psychiatric care, unless your definition of 'need for psychiatric care' is based on the degree to which you dislike what that person says!

If I had suggested that you needed psychiatric care, which I didn't, you'd have been offended.

Can we not have a more reasonable debate than this? Too much heat being generated and not enough light!

391

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 21/01/2007 20:19:52

Fornication and sin...strewth can ye no jist smell the incense...fire and brimstone?....its startin tae heat up a bit in here. Is there any mention o' the dinosaurs in the bible eh?....considering its supposed to go way back right to the very beginning....nah,...strange that eh?

Personally I think yer GP should be able tae gie ye a prescription for masturbation....just go tae a wee clinic somewhere and somebody whips oan the rubber gloves and sorts ye oot. Be a helluva lot less frothing at the mouth....sexual assaults etc..

"Howzitgaun Jimmy no seen ye in a wee while eh?"

"Aye fine thanks jist been fir mah wA*k script...right as rain noo, nae need tae annoy the wimmin the day eh?"

392

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 20:20:09

"393 truly illuminating.

and specifically/"

Your posts.

393

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:20:50

ALL NOTE;

Prolific poster JEFF is frightened of a small, simple question I asked him some time ago.

He is now demonstrating not only bigotry, but cowardice.

Answer 333, please, Jeff.

394

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 21/01/2007 20:21:10

Keep all religions out of politics!

395

,

21/01/2007 20:22:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 305095, Article id was mapped to record!
396

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 20:22:44

#405

Both my uncles came out to me in the last 5 years - I was utterly gobsmacked by one of them - given he said to my mum he did no approve of me when I came out at 15 - I am now 45.

He broke down in tears when he said he had been living a lie and had told his wife - who left him and told their kids in an email.

Everybody gets hurt in a situation like that and if only society could get past who does what in bed we would all be a better society for it.

397

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:22:54

keep all seculars out of politics.

398

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 21/01/2007 20:23:33

Nah dont think so Pex ...you are just demonstrating your bullying overbearing posturing again...bit like Rick from 'The Young Ones' eh?

399

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:24:04

414

who here is arguing against your homosexuality, jeff?

400

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:24:34

Nah dont think so Doreen ...you are just demonstrating your bullying overbearing posturing again...bit like Rick from 'The Young Ones' eh?

401

Angus Mor,

God's Own Island 21/01/2007 20:24:47

I jest not Martha! However, I was a serving soldier in the Seaforth Highlanders for a few years and homosexuality was known about and practiced amongst the boys and yes, some of them had wives/girlfriends and kids back home.

Nothing new under the sun eh?

Wasn't it Caligula the Roman emperor have homosexual dendancies and pedophillic ones too, employing "minnows" (small children) to swim up under him while he was bahing to "nibble" at his bits?

I'm detracting here but the message is clear.

402

Ken,

21/01/2007 20:25:09

Martha #392
Your sexist drivel is ahrd to take. I know of many people who have split up wth kids. I woul say 3/4 ae the women who have ended things. Kept the kids, stole the house most of the money. The man has to either go to a hostel or th street
I suggest you take a fair line with our views.

Do you honestly believe He judges a young couple in love as being as sinful as a married man who cheats on his wife and causes the death of a marriage-- a distraught woman and confused, unhappy children, financial ruin for the people he leaves behind?

The married man has knowingly and deliberately taken a vow to be faithful; yet later on he becomes arrogant and lustful enough to believe that he is so special he need not pay attention to his marriage vows nor need he consider the very real rights and needs of his wife and children.

So... in the category of sin, a couple of kids making out in the park-- are they anywhere near the evil of this adulterous man? Hardly. I can see that very plainly, so I imagine the Almighty can too.

403

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:26:13

412

i think therre's about 650 MPs in the UK.

How many would be left if the religious were removed?

404

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 21/01/2007 20:26:31

Ok - enough for tonight .... I am off to iron stuff for work tomorrow ....

night night ;-)

405

Angus Mor,

God's Own Island 21/01/2007 20:28:34

Actually, scratch the Caligula comment. Wrong person to comment on.

Jeff, you came out at 15, 30 years ago? Bl**dy brave mate! Big kahoonas to do that!

406

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 20:29:33

#413 - you have been reported - a shocking accusation.

Especially when you consider its your christian brothers who committed these crime you refer to.

407

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 21/01/2007 20:30:09

Reason, ethics and justice....these are the rational requirements needed to make a decision regarding what is best for our nation....where does faith come into this when we are a mixture of many different faiths, religions and none here?...our governments have the right to make decisions without the influence of religion.....we are not a Christian kingdom....forget it its finished....now back to the dinosaurs....

408

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:30:59

stoo 424

i aint accepting your excuses.

STOP your support for terrorism NOW, stoo.

409

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 21/01/2007 20:31:20

Pex....are you really a preaching parrot or is there an echo in this cyber room?

410

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 20:31:38

Pox, you have lost the plot.

Go and take your lithium.

411

Centurion2,

Glasgow 21/01/2007 20:31:44

#348
He pardoned the adulteress and told people: "Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone."
You're a bit selective, Martha. He also said to the adultress "Go and sin no more"

412

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:32:18

425

remove religious from, westminster - how many will be left to represent us?

413

,

21/01/2007 20:32:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 305130, Article id was mapped to record!
414

Martha,

21/01/2007 20:33:24

Well, Pex, almost everyone has had sex outside of marriage at one time or another, which only proves that all of us are sinners and that the flesh is weak.

This is as true of homosexuals (who in many places are forbidden to marry) as of heterosexuals.

Since homosexuals can and do have their own children, sometimes within Christian marriages where the wife (or husband) does not know that her/his spouse is bisexual, then why forbid a homosexual couple to adopt? Are the children going to be any worse off?

415

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:33:57

Oh, and stoo, evidence to support my comments ARE available to you.

416

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 21/01/2007 20:35:06

421...Pex, dont give a stuff just as long as none of them put the bible or the Koran or any other holy book on the table when they are discussing potential new laws for this country.

417

Martha,

21/01/2007 20:35:07

Adultery is something different from mere fornication-- but yes, the adulterer should go and sin no more, once forgiven.

Interestingly enough, you never read in the Bible about stoning male adulterers. Apparently only the women were singled out for this particular torture, just as today in muslim lands.

418

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 20:35:10

Pox, you are the catlick fundie nutter - why are you accusing me of being one too.

Incredibly infantile behaviour.

419

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:36:22

Martha 432

Well, Pex, almost everyone has had sex outside of marriage at one time or another, which only proves that all of us are sinners and that the flesh is weak.

YES, I AGREE.

This is as true of homosexuals (who in many places are forbidden to marry) as of heterosexuals.

NO, THEY CANNOT MARRY.

Since homosexuals can and do have their own children, sometimes within Christian marriages where the wife (or husband) does not know that her/his spouse is bisexual, then why forbid a homosexual couple to adopt?

NO-ONE HERE FORBIDDING IT, MARTHA.

Are the children going to be any worse off?

WORSE OFF THAN WHO?

420

Martha,

21/01/2007 20:36:25

Doreen, why do you write Bible with a small b and Koran with a large K? A little preference there?

421

,

21/01/2007 20:37:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 305146, Article id was mapped to record!
422

Stoo,

Borders 21/01/2007 20:37:38

"NO, THEY CANNOT MARRY."

Yes they can, fortunately fundie loons like you do no make the law.

423

Pex Vobascum,

UK 21/01/2007 20:37:56

Martha

Doreen is a sickening bigot.