We are all equall - ish!

[Lucifer Box]

Not the same thing at all. In treating diseases like those you listed we are simply returning unfortunate people back to the state they existed in prior to catching the disease. In riding a coach and horses through the rights of those with a strong faith simply because it does not fit in with the perceived rights of another minority with more influence is fundamentally flawed and unfair. Homosexuals cannot have children, get over it!

Isn't equal opportunities legislation riding a coach and horses through the rights of those with a strong faith that women are not equal to men?

SB, just be a bigot. Don't try and justify it with faux reasoning.

[shaunbhoy]

The Catholic Church is the last bastion of the sexually repressed homosexual. Often those who complain loudest are secretly envious, eh Shaun?

I wouldn't know, but you seem to be the one complaining loudest about the veracity of the Catholic Church, so I wouldn't be at all surprised.
You are "Churchill" and I claim my £5!

[shaunbhoy]

Isn't equal opportunities legislation riding a coach and horses through the rights of those with a strong faith that women are not equal to men?

No.

Next!

[Lucifer Box]

No.

Next!

Good man. Best just to be honest and be a bigot rather than pretend otherwise with fancy "reasoning".

[Troll]

I am not saying anything about whether I am pro or anti homosexuality, religion, or even tolerance.

I am saying that the law is indeed treating everyone equally here, in fact that is precisely the point of this ruling; and SB is incorrect when he says that it treats people unequally. It does not: it treats ideas unequally.

PS it is interesting that you take it that a posting on this thread will be either pro or anti one or other of the groups involved! "Which side are you on, then?".

I was only trying to clarify your position on the matter since it was not clear from what you posted.

Personally I don't believe a government can legislate for all things to all people - the only sensible way around this is to address the needs of the majority and use this as 'the norm' for framing your legislation, so all people cannot be treated 'equally'

The Church by it's very definition is a long standing club that has at it's heart a book of teachings these define how the club is run & it's membership criteria. You may not like the criteria but it is you free choice not to belong.

On a personal level as a parent I can only see the perspective of man & woman raising children; I can tolerate other peoples alternative individual orientation but cannot and will never accept that two males or two females are of equal value to a man and woman in raising children.

[wendigo100]

I have to disagree here. Laws full of exceptions and exemptions are poor laws. Following your reasoning legitimises, for instance, the treatment of women as second class citizens by one well known popular religion as to do otherwise would be forcing them to go against their beliefs.

I don't agree LB. The religion you talk about goes against the human rights of the women. However, the religious stance on adoption does not go against the human rights of homosexuals, who cannot have children.

Further, you have to consider the human rights of a child, placing them in the care of homosexuals, although I'm not sure how you do that.

Anyway, how many church adoption organisations are there? If homosexual couples want to adopt, why not go to one of the others?

[wendigo100]

STAN:
I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG:
What?!
LORETTA:
It's my right as a man.
JUDITH:
Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA:
I want to have babies.
REG:
You want to have babies?!
LORETTA:
It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG:
But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA:
Don't you oppress me.
REG:
I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA:
[crying]
JUDITH:
Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS:
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

[The Lone Gunman]

I have to disagree here. Laws full of exceptions and exemptions are poor laws. Following your reasoning legitimises, for instance, the treatment of women as second class citizens by one well known popular religion as to do otherwise would be forcing them to go against their beliefs.

I think the principle overrides the personal feeling in this matter.

That is a fair point, but the upshot here is that the Catholic Church and other religious bodies are going to withdraw from being adoption agencies. The losers are the children.

I agree that laws with opt outs are bad, but there needs to be some pragmatism here.

It would be a lot easier if the adoption law or fertility treatment were only available to those couples who were only unable to have children due to one or both of them being disfunctional.

Gay men can have children, so can lesbian women.

[foritisme]

Because it's against their teachings? & It's not just Christians - other religions have problems with it -

I guess it depends on which page of the bible you are reading that day (or Koran etc)

[Lucifer Box]

Some interesting points here, fellas (SB's excluded) and certainly some food for thought. It is a case of principle versus personal feeling which is always a thorny issue for the legislature.

I'm fairly ambiguous myself but I do like to try and stick to the principle that laws should not be full of exemptions, and certainly not on belief based grounds as that is the thin end of a potentially worrying wedge that can legitimise all sorts of unpleasant attitudes.