Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Catholic charity loses appeal over gay adoption

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Good.
    Now the churches need to be demolished aswell, only Gaga, Madonna and Kylie should be worshipped!

    1. You’d demolish the Sistine Chapel just because you disagree with the theology? Let’s hope we stay free from your kind of Pol Pot Year Zero vandalism.

      1. No, i’d demolish it because of the evil institution of religion it represents and how they encouraged racial segregation, slavery, discrimination and murder.

        1. As a cultured and intelligent gay man, I feel I have as much if not worse to fear from the thuggish vandalism propounded by Tigra 07 as any on the religious right. He would destroy the masterpieces of Michaelangelo (who was, after all, himself gay) in an ideological battle which he himself scarcely understands.

          The Roman Catholic Church has been a force for both good and evil in the past 2000 years of European culture; in fact, European culture as we know it wouldn’t exist without the Church, which rebuilt European civilisation after the fall of Rome.

          Thank heavens the likes of Tigra 07 are powerless little men whose only voice in society is on internet comments boards.

          1. Get your facts right:- the catholic church in Europe was responsible for the dark ages, the inquisition, the burning and persecution of scientists and innocent people, not some kind of balanced good/bad influence. They brought persecution and ignorance to new levels.

            Spare us the ridiculous sentiment that we’re all as stupid and as biased as you.

          2. Jock S. Trap 30 Apr 2011, 8:47am

            Yes Will and those Facts should Never be forgotten.

          3. Amen Will. Tell it like it actually is!

    2. I think I would rather worship the Gods: Jimmy Page and Victor Wooten (among others).

    3. Christinity = Death

      1. Paddyswurds 26 Apr 2011, 9:58pm

        @Ken….
        ……Religion = Death

        1. Death = Death

          Never mind the religion

          lol

    4. Catholic adoption agencies lost their appeal long ago, about the same time we discovered how the Catholic church protects and harbours clergy who rape and abuse children in their care.

      1. Fully documented here:

    5. musclelad23 27 Apr 2011, 7:47am

      That sounds utterly depressing. What will the new religion be called? “the trinity of successful boring fag hags who have no singing abilty”

    6. Catholic Care, a Leeds-based charity that facilitates about five adoptions a year.

      1. Jock S. Trap 30 Apr 2011, 8:48am

        Not any more, thank Gaga!

      2. Meanwhile they have spent tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of donated money on pursuing this mean and tiresome anti-gay litigation and not a penny of that wasted money has gone toward finding a home for a child in care…totally disgraceful.

        1. Jock S. Trap 30 Apr 2011, 12:42pm

          Exactly Pavlos. Yet more proof that children are the least on their mind while their own bigotted minds win through!

    7. well that many fewer of the children that the church can abuse and rape.

      Here’s how they got more converts – by stealing hundreds of thosuands of babies

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049647/BBC-documentary-exposes-50-year-scandal-baby-trafficking-Catholic-church-Spain.html

  2. And yet we’ll have gay Christians on here like that moron Damien defending the church regardless. Any LGBT individual who follows whatever religion or faith should just really be sectioned. The two are incompatible because of various faiths’ views on homosexuality and yet there are those in the LGBT community who call themselves Christians.

    1. Religion and faith are two different things. A person of faith can be Christian without slavish devotion to any particular Church. I chose to identify as Christian because I look to the life of Christ as being truly radical in its teaching. Jesus stood for the dispossesed, the rejected and marginalised in society, and taught the power of unconditional love without judgement – all qualities that our fight for equality embrace. There are many GLBT folk that I know who would say as I do that the New Testament and Christ’s life have truly blessed and informed our life. Many religious organisations are very supportive of the gay community, have gay clergy and congregations. To damn all of us based on the actions of the intolerant Catholic Church is short sighted.

      1. Nikki Hatch 27 Apr 2011, 5:30am

        Totally agree with you, Stewart. Well said! I’m tired of being villified for being a believer in Jesus Christ because of the Churches that preach intolerance. Yes, I believe that close minded religions certainly are responsible for the anti-GLBT culture that we see in society; however, there are Christian Churches that are fully inclusive and actually preach the true message of Christ, which is about love and compassion. That message has transformed my life and made me a much better person.

    2. Hello extremism, prejudice, and ignorance.

    3. And yet we have morons on here who attack “the church” regardless. You admit there are various faiths yet have obviously never bothered to get close enough to one to have any actual knowledge of the varying levels of views.

      The first time I met my bisexual friend’s dad he was wearing his clerical collar. He is also a least a little bisexual and the most fabulous and accepting man I’ve met. He is completely brilliant and if I was ever going to go back into a church it would be his, every time. I also have another friend whose vicar was completely happy for her and her girlfriend to be a part of the church and went to great lengths to make them feel welcome.

      Whether a church charity should be allowed to reject gay couples from adopting is one thing. Whether religion and sexuality are incompatible is quite another and in my experience, you can be LGBTQ and have faith AND be accepted by a Christian church.

    4. I’m glad I don’t share the same prejudice views, I have made quite a few wonderful Christian friends and I am finding it interesting looking into religions, seeing what suits me. If you are willing to look further than the surface, try reading some “holy” books, you might be surprised that hating homosexuals tends not to be key to most religions, it also seems to be common that minor rules are not shared by everyone belonging to the religion but rather its more beliefs of afterlife and God that are shared within a religion.

    5. de Villiers 26 Apr 2011, 10:30pm

      > Any LGBT individual who follows whatever religion or faith should just really be sectioned.

      Something similar has already been tried in Europe. I hope not to see its return.

    6. Galadriel1010 27 Apr 2011, 1:38pm

      What is it about the idea that there are liberal christians and conservative christians is so hard to understand? The charity was completely wrong to discriminate, but not all christians are like them.

      1. Jock S. Trap 27 Apr 2011, 3:24pm

        Your right but sadly we only tend to hear about the hateful ones.

        1. Galadriel1010 28 Apr 2011, 3:55pm

          That’s because bad news sells, sadly. There are plenty of wonderful people out here doing fantastic things for acceptance (including some real heroes of the gay rights movement like Sylvia Rivera), but that doesn’t make for interesting news.

          1. Jock S. Trap 28 Apr 2011, 5:04pm

            Actually I wish more places/sites would report the good as well as the bad.

          2. Galadriel1010 29 Apr 2011, 10:31pm

            So do I. It’s my absolute favourite thing about the royal wedding, that we’ve had wall-to-wall coverage of something as wonderfully, brilliantly happy as two young people getting married.

          3. Jock S. Trap 30 Apr 2011, 8:49am

            Definitely go wih that Galadriel1010. It was a day I felt proud to be British and proud to be living in London.

          4. Galadriel1010 1 May 2011, 3:45pm

            Oh totally. I wish I could have been in London, but we had a tea party instead . I bet it was manic and brilliant down there.

          5. Jock S. Trap 15 May 2011, 11:50am

            Tea Party?
            Sarah P? Is that you?
            ;)

  3. If they’d rather close down the charity completely than provide a home for an orphaned child with two same-sex parents, it makes it very clear where their priorities lie. They dont deserve to be a charity anyway.

    I always find this is religious based charities. They’re more concerned with “doing Gods work” than the actual act of charity.

    1. They just want to cash that metaphysical paycheck and earn their bonus in the next life, who cares if a kid loses out on a good loving family?

      1. Paddyswurds 26 Apr 2011, 6:09pm

        @Matt…
        ….”earn their bonus in the next life, ” Exactly what do you mean by “the next life”.
        As far as I and indeed science are aware all carbon based life has but one life, and once it dies that is it, the end of life for that particular organism..

        1. Of course the physical body will die and decay, etc but it is possible there is a spirit that once the body dies, it will go to wherever.

          1. And it is possible there isn’t and it won’t. The plain fact is no-one knows (some believe they know but that’s not the same) so to make a assertion that there is a spirit and it lives on requires more proof than is available to us therefore assertion not proved.

          2. I’m not trying to say it is proved, well for the main fact it isn’t and can’t be (unless something happens, like Jesus comes back), I’m just saying that since it is possible there are spirits etc, then anyone’s believes on the matter are valid.

          3. There is no such thing as a “spirit”, Blondie. Yet another fiction created by the religionists to try and control men’s actions in this life

          4. Tim Chapman 26 Apr 2011, 8:55pm

            Ulikely, though. Seems a bit far-fetched to me. What are you basing this belief on?

          5. There is no such thing? you know that for certain? fair enough if you don’t believe in spirits but me and alot others believe in them and I will continue to until I see proof or here a logical argument that makes me think otherwise but my actions are not controlled by any “religionists”.

          6. Tim Chapman 26 Apr 2011, 9:30pm

            Well that’s a new one on me, Blondie; you’ll continue to believe in something that’s extremely unlikely, for which there’s been not a shred of evidence thoughout the entirity of human existence, until someone proves you wrong.   A safe position, because no-one can prove that something does not exist, but not a rational one.

            People can believe whatever nonsense they like, but some people are not content to keep their beliefs out of civil life.  They want to use their irrational beliefs, like yor belief in ‘spirits’, as a basis to discriminate against others, which is what this report is about.  That’s why comments like yours do not go unchallenged in these forums.

          7. To Tim, there are a variety of things, I wont go into the main one as its sort of personal but there are others, some psychics can be scarily accurate though alot more aren’t. The whole idea of the mind, the way it works which admittedly we have some understanding of but just the whole complexity of the subconscious. The variety of stuff that might just be nothing but might possibly have further meaning, such as near-death experiences etc. I also heard once a theory that there are more than the 4 known dimensions, which made me wander, once the body died whether the spirit can/will move along another dimension but this last one seems really complicated in my head but then again I would think if there was a God, I doubt he would make an afterlife we could understand, we don’t even know/fully understand the universe that we can witness

          8. Tim Chapman 26 Apr 2011, 9:43pm

            Blondie, you haven’t said anything substatial at all and what you do say seems to boil down to ‘you don’t know’. Why do you fill your knowledge vacuum with guesswork?

            And is that a good basis on which to discriminate against someone? I’m not saying you do, personally – I don’t know you, but there are plenty of supernaturalists who do.

          9. Of course, yes no one can prove me wrong (though there are moments when I think of something which puts doubt on the theory) but what difference does it make if I believe in it or not. But yes, the problem comes from when people who believe in something without proof use it to treat other people differently but that does not mean that everyone who isn’t an atheist is a homophobe.

          10. Why do I fill my “knowledge vacuum with guesswork”? because it is the start of all scientific theories, I know I can’t scientifically proof any of this but as I remember from A level physics, Albert Einstein’s had some outstanding theories that he didn’t have the technology or ability to prove but years after his death he was proved right (not saying I am as smart as him or even anywhere near). Not only this but to quote House, there is no definite proof, I pick what brings most comfort to my life but its guesswork as well if you believe there isn’t spirits, what difference is me believing in spirit then you not believing.

          11. Tim Chapman 26 Apr 2011, 9:56pm

            ‘that does not mean that everyone who isn’t an atheist is a homophobe’. Who has suggested otherwise?

            Plenty are, though, so let’s keep on challenging their irrational prejudices, shall we?

          12. Tim Chapman 26 Apr 2011, 9:59pm

            As I said, Blondie, I don’t care what you believe, but You’re the one who saw fit to state your beliefs in this discussion.

          13. I am just saying, religious views aren’t as unjustified or irrational as they are made to sound in here, of course homophobia should rightfully be challanged

          14. Paddyswurds 26 Apr 2011, 10:04pm

            @Blondie…
            …..”it will go to wherever.”
            It is the wherever that is the problem.
            It is also entirely possible there is an invisible pink teapot foating on the darkside of the moon…we can never be sure so we mustn’t denounce the idea.

          15. Paddyswurds 26 Apr 2011, 10:11pm

            @ blondie …
            …..aren’t your “believes” driven by fear really. A fear planted and engendered by whatever religion or faith you were raised in. And why would you think a dead person could ever “come back” especially as there is some doubt that person ever existed in the first place.

          16. I got this image now of a gay british astronaut and David Gilmour.

            Of course yes, the possibilities are limitless but until we send someone to check the teapot is/isn’t there, we will never know.

          17. I seriously doubt it, I wasn’t brought up to be religious and have been, well not quite an athiest but been doubting God/afterlife for most of my life, it’s recently that I begun thinking in it.

            I’m sorry but which dead person are you talking about, I rered my comments and cant work out where I mentioned a dead person came back to life

          18. Tim Chapman 26 Apr 2011, 10:21pm

            Blondie, Einstein’s theories were based on reason and even before proof arrived, he already had enough mathematics to lend them plausibility. What are your theories based on?

          19. Tim Chapman 26 Apr 2011, 10:26pm

            You said ‘(unless something happens, like Jesus comes back)’

            Jesus is dead.

          20. My theories are based on what I already said so ok, yeah, my metaphor may of fallen apart now.

            Sorry, yeah, I did say that but I don’t believe Jesus will come back any more than I believe its possible that either one of the religions are right, I just said that as it was the first thing that popped into my head where there would be proof

          21. Paddyswurds 26 Apr 2011, 10:58pm

            @Blondie…
            …if it is invisible the whole exercise (of sending someone to check) would be futile. Something akin to the futility of belief or faith in a religious deity or spirit.

          22. 80 years ago there was no such thing as DNA. We hadn’t found it. But it existed before we found it. Just because we haven’t found this thing that Blondie calls spirit doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Maybe one day scientists will find something that does live on when the body dies? Who knows? Scientists postulate many things that have not been seen or proven beyond a mathematical proposition. Black holes for example. Yet we all think black holes exist. And the recent tests at CERN may prove that, but at first the concept of black holes was refuted by the majority of the scientific community. The universe is more complex than what our science knows at the moment. Science is expanding our rational understanding of the cosmos all the time. Maybe one day science will prove that something does live on beyond the body in some quantum reality or Multiverse. Or maybe I’ve just been reading too much Michio Kaku and Brian Greene?

          23. Regardless of the possibility of spirit. I’m happy that catholics cannot stop lesbians and gay guys from adopting. And I don’t like religion.

          24. Tim Chapman 27 Apr 2011, 7:47am

            So what’s the ‘artistic proof’ and ‘experience’ that lends plausibility to faith. Sounds a bit airy-fairy to me and I want a bit more than that to support a theory that some people use as a reason for prejudice and discrmination. When people of faith stop trying to use their faith to others’ detriment, then I’ll stop challenging their faith because it’ll be none of my bussiness. Meanwhile, they’re fair game.

        2. I never said that life exists, that’s just what they believe.

          1. de Villiers 26 Apr 2011, 10:35pm

            > even before proof arrived, he already had enough mathematics to lend them plausibility

            That is not quite right. Mathematics does not provide the proof – one has to create concepts such as imaginary numbers (negative squares) that lie at right-angles to reality.

            Aside from that, artistic proof and experience lends a different form of support to mathematical proof.

    2. All those missionaries that went to Africa to ‘help’ the poverty stricken there; ‘feed and convert them’ was the whole purpose and now look how f–ked up the natives are with their militant xtian views.

    3. Jock S. Trap 27 Apr 2011, 8:26am

      Matt
      I agree. They just wanted the right to discriminate and be exempt from British law. They have failed children and used then for their own warped minds.
      Lets face it this had nothing to do with children just their own prejudice, therefore I have to question if indeed they themselves were the right people to be around children in the first place.

  4. Man, this story brightened up my day!

  5. The equality law must now be scrapped. Lets hope The Govenment go through with their proposal.

    1. I partly agree, We should be allowed to discriminate against xians in the provision of goods and services for maybe 10 years and then have a debate about equality.

    2. There is no proposal to scrap it unless they want to be one of the most unpopular govts in history…..haven’t you noticed they’re trying to change, no-one likes the old tories even the new ones….

      1. I think David Cameron would disagree. he seem to look up to Thatcher alot

        1. You can look up to person (she was a formidable person!) but that doesn’t mean you’re going to follow her 80s right wing policies, we’re now in 2011!!! and if you haven’t noticed moved on a little since then….have absolutely no idea how scrapping the main discirmination bits of the eqality act would tie up with Europe or the world anymore….has anyone yet won any legal cases against the equality act??has there been cases from Europe reinforcing the principles of it?Get real, it’s here to stay!

    3. Tim Chapman 26 Apr 2011, 8:20pm

      What proposal?

    4. Paddyswurds 26 Apr 2011, 10:29pm

      @ Joe …
      …it is not possible to withdraw rights of equality under British Law, except in time of war when some rights can be suspended, such as the right to imprisonment without conviction, as was used in the north of Ireland by the Tories during the “Troubles”. but even that requires “special powers” to be enacted.

    5. Jock S. Trap 27 Apr 2011, 8:35am

      As John says thee is no proposal to scraps it. It should Never be scrapped anyway but seriously these people that think it should be do they think it just protest the LGBT community? Guess thats the problems when people just assume.
      The Equality Act is the most important Act and just because religion can’t hack not being centre of attention they have so often craved, doesn’t mean we have to give in.
      It’s fairness to all not bigots.

      1. there is a proposal to review it not to scrap it though but ets hope we don’t get idiots who want to change it to allow discrimination against groups they don’t like thats a slippery path

        1. *lets

        2. Jock S. Trap 28 Apr 2011, 5:05pm

          Yes I second that Hamish.

  6. Dr Robin Guthrie 26 Apr 2011, 6:38pm

    “Leeds-based Catholic Care have said they will have no choice but to end their work finding homes for children if they are forced to comply with the new equality regulations which prohibit discrimination against same-sex couples wanting to adopt.”

    Just about sums these people up really.

    There dogma is FAR more important than finding caring homes for orphaned children.

    How sick is that…….

    1. Dave North 26 Apr 2011, 6:39pm

      What always amazes me is that they cannot see the irony of it.

      Wholesome Christians my @rse.

    2. Jock S. Trap 27 Apr 2011, 8:37am

      Indeed Dr Robin.
      Instead of complying with the Law they’d rather effectively leave children on the streets.
      Then they wonder why they look like a bunch of dinosaurs.

  7. Muslims…take note!! They asre the militant religion here and they need to understand they come under the sae law.

  8. Thank heavens..if they’re not interested 100% in working for the child then good riddance to them…if this is all about them and their perceived religious belief to do whatever then the UK and Leeds are best without them.

    Agree lets not confuse all Christians with the leaders of some Churches and cults…they don’t see eye to eye , they’re mostly in turmoil over the whole issue…

    1. I’m not defending them but I think their view is that it is not good to place a child with same-sex parents. By this reasoning they are showing they are interested 100% in the well-being of the child, not simply with finding a new home for the child. They are wrong, obviously, but their position is internally coherent.

      1. Jock S. Trap 27 Apr 2011, 8:44am

        Sorry but no. I very doubt they have meant with any same-sex couple to see for themselves but rather just take the Bible’s word for it. In other words they assume but actually don’t know the facts, nor are interested in them.
        So no they have done nothing in the interests of the children just their own egos.
        They deserve this judgement for their own warped one.

      2. There has been research done into same sex parenting and how it effects the kid and it has shown no detrimental evidence so far, so they are ignoring facts for the fiction they choose to believe. Its not in the best interest of the children

      3. They are 100% interested in their religious teachings and not what is best for the child. All things gay are probably unacceptable because that is what they are told. If you are so clouded by one way of thinking to the detriment of all other things then you can not be 100% interested in the interests of the child surely. You have to adapt to the child’s interests and not your own.

        1. Jock S. Trap 29 Apr 2011, 3:35pm

          Here! Here!

    2. Paddyswurds 26 Apr 2011, 10:32pm

      @john….
      …the sad experience in Ireland of the RC church is that they are more interested in buggering children than helping them.

    3. Jock S. Trap 27 Apr 2011, 8:42am

      Indeed this has nothing to do with children just there own ignorance.
      At least the children will be free from these particular bigots.

      1. Jock S. Trap 27 Apr 2011, 8:45am

        Sorry that message was in response to john.

  9. I think it is high time that religiously-identified organisations were barred from arranging the adoption of children. Cases like this show that they are likely to put doctrinal and supernaturalist prejudices ahead of empirical considerations of child welfare in finding homes for the children.

    1. Tim Chapman 26 Apr 2011, 8:44pm

      I agree, but let’s not stop at adoption agencies.  Religion should play no part whatsoever in the provision of any services that should properly be offered to citizens on an equal basis, without prejudice, discrimination or indoctination and in my view there should be no exceptions to this at all.  Only last week, funding was withdrawn from a specialist organisation housing trafficked women and given instead to the Salvation Army, an evangelical church, which describes its mission primarily as being to ‘preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ’. By the end of the week a London Council had given over counselling services for teenagers to the Catholic Children’s Society. Their counsellors will now be required to ‘uphold the Catholic ethos’ while talking to young people about contraception, unwanted pregnancy and homophobic bullying!  This has got to stop.

    2. Jock S. Trap 27 Apr 2011, 8:49am

      I agree with both these comments.
      I also think it is time to separate church from state once and for all.

  10. Don Harrison 26 Apr 2011, 7:53pm

    Do not tar all Christian adoption agencies with the same brush. We are talking here about the Roman Catholic church here.
    I am an out gay Anglican Christian. I have compiled an article on the Bible and Homosexuality which I am still editing.
    Don

    1. Dave North 26 Apr 2011, 8:11pm

      Take a staring point of Mithra and move on from their.

      You know, the religion that predates Christianity that you lot stole almost word for word.

      1. Paddyswurds 26 Apr 2011, 10:39pm

        @Dave North…
        …..regardless which belief predates which, it is all irrational fear of the unknown and more importantly of death.

        1. actually the early religions where about understanding how the world around us worked before science. I’m not sure wether its Mithra but the religion which basically is the starting point of all religions is based on the sun rising etc.

    2. Tim Chapman 26 Apr 2011, 9:08pm

      But why are there any ‘Christian adoption agencies’? Why aren’t there just ‘adoption agencies’? What’s Christianity, or any other superstition, got to do with finding loving parents for children in need?

      1. Paddyswurds 26 Apr 2011, 10:41pm

        .@TC…….
        ………other that their proven pederastic interest in children that is?

      2. Jock S. Trap 27 Apr 2011, 8:53am

        Excellent point Tim. Adoption Agencies should be free from labels or group and just serve the interest of the children.

    3. Jock S. Trap 27 Apr 2011, 8:52am

      Oh that’ll be interesting…. I don’t think.

  11. So it’s not abut the children….hmmmm
    idiot catholics

    1. Jock S. Trap 27 Apr 2011, 8:54am

      Doubt it ever was!

  12. Good, about time this cult with a millenia old tradition of molesation was taken to task.

    Paddyswurds, I agree. Nobody ever came back from death to say there was an afterlife, except of course if you believe in that fairy tale in the new testament, among many man others. All unproven, but then the believers will say faith is blind. How dumb and illogical does it get?

  13. Good news – and the only logical result. You can’t have opt-outs from the law, and religion (of whatever kind) isn’t some special get-out clause that allows you to ignore the law.

    1. Tim Chapman 26 Apr 2011, 9:49pm

      Absolutely, Iris. When Do you think they’ll get the message?

      1. I think many of them have (probably) already got the message – hence their push to portray themselves as victims, and the insistence on their religious beliefs being special and above the law (eg The Manhattan Declaration). They just don’t care. They’re busy fighting some battle against *insert enemy of your choice* and every defeat is just another piece of ‘proof’ to push on the gullible and use to manipulate them.
        Also, many religious people are motivated by fear – fear of becoming obsolete; fear of having the blanket ripped off them and having to face up to the real world.

        I’m fed up with case after case like this – it’s like trying to explain a concept to a very young child.

    2. Paddyswurds 26 Apr 2011, 10:45pm

      @Iris…
      …it is sooo satisfying to see these religion fantasists finally get their comeuppance..again.
      The score so far, rationality = 6.
      Religious fantasists = 0.

      1. I agree, but what is really sad is Christianity arguing for the right to discriminate, as if discrimination is at the heart of Christs teachings in the Gospels.

        Speechless!!!, is the only word.

      2. I agree, but what is really sad is Christianity arguing for the right to discriminate, as if discrimination is at the heart of, or in the spirit of Christs teachings in the Gospels.

        1. saynotommmmm 27 Apr 2011, 12:26am

          I agree with you fully. I remember a church full of love and acceptance. Not hate and misery. It seem that all the church is concerned with is hate. The more pain and suffering they can inflict on a monirty the better. I am sure any god of love would not walk up to a gay person and instruct his/her followers to hate, to mock , to disown. The church was once about light now it seems to be about darkness

      3. I think we’re on more than 6 by now religion has been showing itself up for years now must be getting into the hundreds

        1. Paddyswurds 30 Apr 2011, 12:30pm

          I was thinking in terms of court cases…..

    3. Jock S. Trap 27 Apr 2011, 8:56am

      Exactly Iris, Excellent point. So maybe now the work will be done with the best interests of the child.

  14. David Sharp 26 Apr 2011, 9:52pm

    As a Catholic I am, once again, faced with the dilema, of having to support the teaching of the church, or to follow my concience. The two thing should not be in conflict but they are.
    The whole question of Gay Marriage is a social issue and relates directly to social justice and as I must defend social justice then I have to defend the right of Gay couples having the right to adopt children.
    If the church is allowed to dictate social law in a secular society, dressed as moral theology, then we will return to the church running the state.
    So once again I am at odds with the Church, which is sad for me, but necessary.
    Once again I will be chastised for not following the techings of the church, well so be it. I will make my peace with God.

    1. Paddyswurds 26 Apr 2011, 10:48pm

      @ David Sharp…
      … Rational Question;…Who exactly is “God” ?

    2. musclelad23 27 Apr 2011, 7:48am

      Follow your conscience. It’s what Jesus would do.

    3. @David, why would you want to follow the teachings of a church, that is reluctant to move beyond a rather medieval onto-epistemological view of the world

  15. headlines like this are always pleasing :)

  16. Eunice and Owen Johns – the couple judged unsuitable to foster children – took part in this evening’s 4thought.tv. Eunice talked about her belief that church weddings should be restricted to unions between men and women

  17. Give the cathothic churches history with children…….They have a lot of nerve to make ANY kind of judgement/comment on adoption…..

  18. If these people cannot do what they want, then gays should not be allowed to marry, that will be equal.

    1. Catholics or members of any other religion are permitted to believe whatever they want and worship as they see fit (within the law), they must abide by civil law in the provision of goods and services. Catholic Care adoption agency is providing a public service.

    2. How about if catholics can’t marry THEN gays can’t marry thats equal.
      We can’t stop a religious person from adopting because we don’t like there religion so why should they be allowed to stop us.
      If anything we’ve got it harder we can’t change what we are religion is a choice!

    3. Joe, people cannot “do what they want”. That’s called anarchy. Its the reason we have laws, not a theocracy of the superstitious. Please take time to grasp the basics before posting, there’s a good chap.

    4. @Joe, rather simplistic logic. How do you cope with the complexity of the real world?

      1. LOL! Well said.

  19. My sorry to all catholics!

    1. Sorry Catholics but you are not permitted to discriminate against members of the public that you have targetted for special inferior treatment for your own arbitrary reasons.

  20. Catholic Brothers!
    Keep your Religion up!
    God loves you forever!

    1. Officially Catholic religionists who follow Vatican decree are against equality and are obsessive in their wish to discriminate against LGBT’s yet you say you don’t want to be discriminated against yourselves.

      You spit in the faces of gay men and lesbian women and when you are asked to behave you claim you are being victimised and discriminated against, it’s not a convincing claim because it’s patently untrue.

    2. Jock S. Trap 27 Apr 2011, 12:22pm

      All human beings are born equal and should remain equal throughout of life.
      A chosen religion should Never take priorty as it is a Chosen lifestyle. You chose what to believe, you chose to be and remain a bigot.

    3. Hold on, wasn’t “Rich” spouting islamic nonsense last week? Now the catholics are his brothers? Troll.

      1. Jock S. Trap 28 Apr 2011, 5:08pm

        Yep, he can’t make his mind up.
        Wonder who’ll it be next week.

      2. Hopefully sane, but that just might be out of his reach. He’s seriously one damaged and incredibly stupid individual.

        1. Jock S. Trap 29 Apr 2011, 3:41pm

          Indeed Will we can live in hope :)

      3. You, nasty Will, are stupid, As much as Jock are, and I tell you why.
        Catholics believe in God as much as all Muslims does. That’s why they are Brothers of Muslims.

        1. Jock S. Trap 15 May 2011, 11:52am

          And your point is, exactly?
          Think mine is Who gives a crap?

        2. “You, nasty Will, are stupid”

          Is that why I have 4 degrees? LOL! Just like you, Rich, eh? Well, ones you found in that garbage pile you dig in for your dinner, perhaps….

    4. Rich, your appear to be shifting your spirtual allegiance from one week to the next. One week you are algined to Islam, this week your are appear alligned to orthodox Christianity.
      .
      Make your mind up

      1. Jock S. Trap 30 Apr 2011, 8:50am

        I doubt he can JohnK!
        It’s all very sad.

      2. As long as Catholics or Orthodoc Christians rejecting homosexuals and preventing these homosexuals perverts to get innocent children into homosexual environment of false “families” of perverts, I am whole heartedly will support Catholics and Orthodox priests and believers!

        1. Jock S. Trap 1 May 2011, 8:34am

          Your not very bright are you Rich?
          Those homophobic religious adoption charities are no closed.
          Homophobia is a crime, you are a criminal, just like those religious bigots.
          Their time has come and they are now gone, here’s hoping yours isn’t far away.

        2. Rich, why do you follow a pedophilia prophet, it is well know that Mohammad used to have sex with girls as yourg as 12 years old.

          Rich, why are you supporting this pervert

  21. the catholics had the choice to comply so they did have a choice so they lie again, they have chosen to keep homophobia and reject the kids

  22. I hope they do ‘end their work finding homes for children’.
    Religion corrupts the minds of children with lies. The private sector should take over. The children would also be saved from possible molestation by priests.

  23. Jock S. Trap 27 Apr 2011, 8:19am

    If they would rather close than see that Gay couples can make just as good loving parents then they deserve everything they get.
    I am pleased with this outcome but saddened for the sake of the children who are being used as moral pawns.
    Yet more proof how vile religion gets and how they end up throwing temper tantrums when they don’t get what they want and what they want is to discriminate.
    No religion should ever be above how one is born and I’m glad that finally society is starting to realised it.
    A proud day esp for all those Gay couple who wish to adopted and provide an good, stable, loving home.

  24. Spanner1960 27 Apr 2011, 10:19am

    I think the ridiculous point of all this is that it is their “rules”.

    As far as I know, there were Ten Commandments, and then a whole bunch of ridiculous laws about wearing mixed materials and eating prawns.

    There is no definitive list of rules anywhere in the Bible, and certainly not “No child should be placed in the hands of Guardians that listen to Kylie and use lots of moisturiser.”

    All this attitude is down to interpretation, so it is not the Bible per Se, it is the warped preconceptions people like the Vatican have come up with in order to justify these words.

    If any rationally minded person based their opinions on the Bible and then looked at gay adoption, they probably wouldn’t see a conflict. It’s just crusty old concepts handed down over centuries within organised religion such as the Catholic church that have continued to keep these old principles on a life-support machine when they should been allowed to die years ago.

  25. If their god would rather see a child orphaned than given a loving home, then he clearly isn’t all about goodness and love and more about enforcement of arbitrary rules regardless of the harm they do.

    So their god isn’t ‘love’ as they constantly insist he is, and by extension they are either wrong about him or lying. Unless of course they are following their own rules here and not their god’s; in which case they are massive hypocrits. And they expect to be exempted from equality laws on the basis of their self-evidently incorrect, false or hypocritical interpretation of the will of an unproven/fictional entity?

    Idiots.

    1. Galadriel1010 27 Apr 2011, 1:44pm

      Sounds to me like they’ve lost their way and consider the words of a human, fallible and corrupt organisation over the message of their god.

      1. That would pretty much sum up most religions, I think.

        1. Jock S. Trap 27 Apr 2011, 3:25pm

          Yep, I would have to agree with that Iris.

        2. Galadriel1010 28 Apr 2011, 4:00pm

          I think it sums up most people, really.

  26. Galadriel1010 27 Apr 2011, 1:48pm

    I’m so glad to hear this. Jesus would be the first to condemn them if he were here today. He wasn’t exactly one for following the rules and regulations of the religion, especially when it came to protecting those who needed it.

    Many christian denominations have got so far from the truth that they wouldn’t recognise him now, and they’d be the ones to condemn him for healing the sick on the sabbath. The well-being of the children who may now be adopted by loving gay parents, and those who won’t be subjected to the indoctrination this charity clearly espouses, is the most important thing.

  27. Just an interesting footnote – a few weeks ago Vincent Nichols, the RC Archbishop of Westminster, blandly commented on Start the Week (Radio 4, Monday AMs) that compelling Catholic adoption agencies not to discriminate against l&g couples was ‘ideological’. It was on the radio so I couldn’t tell if he kept a straight face, and he even trotted out the line that it is alright for Catholic agencies to discriminate as long as somebody else doesn’t. Most people don’t mug old ladies; ergo it is not a problem if I do. Nichols is also on record as saying that Catholic adoption policy had to witness to the ‘complementarity of male and female’. Ideology, anyone? I think mine would be giving priority to the needs of children, and I suspect that all that complementarity stuff doesn’t actually figure in it.

  28. What I find remarkable is this catholic adoption lot. Nowhere do they say about the needs of the children or think about them. They say they will stop helping kids find homes because of their arrogance and ignorant views.

    They are missing the point of what they do. They are there to find loving homes for children, and they are neglecting that role.

    So I would of closed them down for incompetence and risking children’s mental safety and given the job to better suited more open people.

    1. Jock S. Trap 28 Apr 2011, 8:51am

      Good Comment Adam88, totally agree!!

  29. ooer missus 28 Apr 2011, 3:07pm

    Dogma before duty…

    1. Catholic Care is a Leeds-based charity that facilitates only about five adoptions a year.

      1. Jock S. Trap 29 Apr 2011, 3:42pm

        Not anymore… apparently!!

        1. Let’s hope so, meanwhile Catholic Care have spent tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of donated money on pursuing this mean and tiresome anti-gay litigation and not a penny of that wasted money has gone toward finding a home for a child in care…totally disgraceful.
          Shouldn’t the Charities Commission be investigating Catholic Care’s misuse of donated funds?

          1. Ha! And you, pervert, talking about decent Catholic nuns, falsely accusing them to be disgreaceful? Hypocrite and degenerate you ARE! Shame on you!

          2. Shutup, Rich. Adults are talking.

          3. Jock S. Trap 1 May 2011, 8:36am

            “Hypocrite and degenerate you ARE”

            See, told ya it would be Jedi next!
            Bit Rich, Rich, innit!!??!!

        2. Rich, why do you support a pedophile prophet called Mohammed?

  30. DiddleyDoo 29 Apr 2011, 6:25pm

    I do not hate anyone enough to be religious!

    1. Even if you hate, you will be punished really hard!

      1. Not by you, Rich. You couldn’t punish a cat. Hence you’re in here, ranting like a demented schoolkid. I am laughing at you.

      2. Jock S. Trap 1 May 2011, 8:37am

        Think he’s on about his night with the whips and paddles, Will.

        1. Jock S. Trap 1 May 2011, 8:38am

          Bet he’s the one doing the bending over mind!!

      3. Rich, you appear to be contradicting yourself. One minute you are arguing it is ok to exterminate homosexuals, then the next minute it is not ok to hate any one.
        .
        Rich, which on is it?

        1. Don’t respond to the incoherent rantings of the mad. It is a waste of time and only encourages them to believe that their drivel matters.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all