Or e-mail me: @yahoo.ca">jpdugast@yahoo.ca I am retired and I have time on my hands.

(Report comment to the moderator)

New members are invited to identify themselves by using a nickname. You can find me under the nickname of 'jaypea'.
I really would like to get to know you better. Up to you.

(Report comment to the moderator)

Yes, your answers are most informative.

To tell you the truth, I knew so little of contemporay Scotland that you were practically working with a clean slate, and I really do appreciate your taking the time to elaborate the circumstances in which you live.

What impresses the most though is to see what a firm grip you have on this, shall we say 'flexibilty' of the law in Scotland.

'…they feel it has nothing to do with them.' Now that's a corker!

I had forgotten about the Scottish history regarding the presbyterian/calvanists; I vaguely recall reading about King James I, and Queen Mary's husband.

Believe it or not, but I can relate to you. Things that happen in New Brunswick so often go unnoticed by mainstream Canada, and I too can see the dreary side of life here although we get tourists who say that this is heaven on earth, fresh air, no pollution, you know…healthy.

I Googled Ayr again last evening and I stayed there for a while. I did notice ships at the docks, and I believe there was a picture of a steam-paddle-ship in red and white. Then I went over the farming area…so much of it, such a wealth.

I'm curious to know if you would be interested in becoming a member of PinkNews. You don't have to, but it is free, and members get a chance to write back and forth and get to know each other.

There are about 250 members at the moment, each with a brief profile. You can check it out without necessarily joining. All you have to do is click on the word 'My' at the upper left hand corner of the front page; it's in the light gray area.

If not, well, looking forward to crossing you on another thread, eh Anthony.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

Something told me we would end up on the same track. You do well to feel that church and state should be completely separate. They should be, if not we are looking at some form of theocracy, are we not?

Here in Canada, where church and state are officially separate, problems occasionally pop up because some politician belong to one church or another, but it is usually an attempt by the RCC to interfere in the democratic process that makes the headlines. Then all hell breaks loose, because the media have a field day making fun of the RCC.

That is exactly the missing piece of the puzzle in a better understanding of Scotland's mentality or circumstances. Is the press subsidized by the government? Or under the control of the RCC? Is there no independent newspaper? The media is a most powerful force when it comes to exposing injustices, isn't it? For example, if this news item made it to PinkNews, did it not appear in the Scottish daily papers first? Were you able to discern how the population in general reacted to it?

I realize that newspapers are an industry. Here in New Brunswick, for example, The wealthiest family in the province, the Irvings, own and operate the news industry, and we all know to expect a certain slant in the editorials, which do lean to the right.

By the way, I did get a chance to Google Earth Ayrshire and only had time to focus on the city of Ayr. It appears to be in the lowlands, is that how you would call it? Is it farming and fishing country? Beautiful buildings, such character, so solid looking…very beautiful, or beautifully presented!

Sorry to leave you with so many questions, but I am curious by nature. If anything, I would be inclined to persue further by enquiring about the opposition party or parties, and their spin on the church-run adoption agencies.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

So You're Burty!! I don't suppose you have a picture of youself in a military uniform ???

(Report comment to the moderator)

After reading your two comments, I can see where I was confused, and it probably has to do with this strong undercurrent of resentment that I have towards the RCC.

I'll try to be brief. Here in Canada, the RCC is barely hanging on by its teeth. The laity is getting older, the young have given up the practice, and the clergy are not being replaced by young priests because there is a severe shortage of them.

In my diocese, for example, which is in the northern part of New Brunswick, there are (were) 62 parishes 15 years ago, each with its own pastor. Today the same parishes are administered by 22 priests and there is only one seminarian. This means that the 22 remaining priests do the work of 62. A priest has to travel to 3, 4, 5 parishes for weekend Masses, for funerals, etc.

In a word, the Church is old and dying with not too much to do about it. Here in Bathurst, two chuches closed over the last 3 years and the aging faithful had to pick another parish. The problem is compounded by the fact that we have two official languages in this province. I digress.

So just there we are talking about two very different situations.
I don't remember the last time I thought of the Church as powerful.

When I was younger (I am presently 64), I too used to serve Mass, but never for a Cardinal!

So much of my time was spent in studying the history of the Church that I have arrive at a certain understanding of why the RCC has been and continues to be hostile towards homosexuals. The more I know, the more furious I become, because Jesus said not a word about sex one way or another.

I hope I am not talking too much.

As for your second comment, you're right. I didn't realize that the exemption from the law was in effect in Scotland; I thought it was pending and that 'secret' negotiations had been exposed to the embarassement of both Church and State.

It's a trickey situation because according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights both the religions and the LGBT population have rights; those are rights which are clashing.
The RCC has the right to practice and teach its doctrines thereby spreading homophobia; the LGBT community has a right to adopt a child. Depending on which side has the advantage, an entire scale of possibilities exists. For example, when the Church is powerful, the State will be swayed, etc.

As for your final question, perhaps when the government changes hands, the law may be amended if it is the wish of the people.

To change the subject, a friend of mine who lives in London vacationed in the Highlands not too long ago. I have Scotland on my list of things to do when I use Google Earth. Now that I've met you, I will have a look at Ayrshire as well.

I presume you were born in Scotland and that your family and friends are there. Also, I imagine that because the RCC is so powerful, being gay and living in Scotland can be a problem.

I've enjoyed spending some time with you, and again I hope I haven't bored you to death with my endless babbling.

This is a far cry from the powerful RCC you describe. I presumed the Church in Scotland was experiencing the same deterioration and was desperatly clinging to the government for subsidies.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

Thanks for your input. I wonder if we are simply saying the same thing, although your comment is more elaborate.

In my post (1), I basically said that I hope that this ruling does not fall on deaf ears in Scotland, where the SNP and the RCC are discreetly planning to circumvent the eventuality of such a law being extended throughout the UK.

So, you sum it up well in your last sentence, and if you have been reading Iris' comments you may also agree by extension that the only people who would lose out in Scotland would be the RC agencies who could no longer discriminate according to their own prejudices.

In the final analysis, I would add that the RCC has taken a severe nosedive in popularity since the sex abuse scandals began to reveberate throughout the world. In fact, the Vatican appears to be clutching onto anything that remotely resembles the approval of one govenment or another without necessarily putting the interests of the needy at center-stage.

In my opinion, as a gay Canadian and a lapsed-cradle-catholic who was deeply involved in the social teachings of the Church in the 70's through to the 90's, the Vatican may not have been really concerned with the poor, the destitute, the helpless and innocent victims of globalization in the Third World.

If so, the papacy would not have condemned Liberation Theology because of its propensity to help the poor rather than to rub elbows with the officials of corrupt governments. Its efforts were to counterbalance its growing unpopularity in First World countries.

There are rumours that the present pope will be visiting the UK this year, rubbing elbows with whom, I wonder.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

First, I should say how well impressed I am with your subtle assessement of the situation, and how clearly you did express yourself on this post. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate so well.

In my original post, which may have been confusing also because I did throw in a rather stupid joke, I was referring to a previous thread which had reported that the Scottish National Party and the RCC were 'secretly' planning to defy adoption laws, e.g. RCC adoption agencies could refuse gay parents and get away with it.

When I read in the present article that the Charity Tribunal decided that the adoption agency must either take on gay couples or be forced to close, I took it to mean that the RC agencies would not be permitted to break the law.

In other words, as Iris says in her very last sentence:

'The only people who will lose out here are the RC agencies who will no longer be able to break the law and discriminate according to their own prejudices.'

To be fair, I must admit that there is in my own mind an undercurrent of resentement towards the RC adoption agencies, not only because of the RCC's scandalous reputation of abusing children, but also because of the 'secrecy' involved when it, the RCC, was lobbying a political party even though I now realize that lobbying is usually done in a discreet, or shall I say in a prudent way.

The well-being of the child is not as much a factor in my mind as it is in yours because I took it for granted that the children would be transfered to secular agencies in the event that the RC adoption agencies would be forced to close.

On the whole, this has been an enriching thread for me and I would not have had the chance to examine my point of view so closely without your help.

(Report comment to the moderator)

You said: "I'd rather they stayed open and did the best by the child without considering us, than they close down and the children lose out on an oppurtunity for placement."

The children WON'T lose out on a placement. That's my whole point. They will be taken on by other agencies who have their best interests at heart. The children will not be disadvantaged. People are having a go at you because you don't seem to appreciate that. The only people who will lose out here are the RC agencies who will no longer be able to break the law and discriminate according to their own prejudices.

(Report comment to the moderator)

I have consulted a couple of my friends and they have confirmed that my point does make sense. I will try to explain my point again though, to see if I can clear it up at all for you. It seems that most people on here, would rather that these places close and the children lose out on a place that could potentially place them with parents, straight or gay, than the places stay open and not consider us as parents. I am all for LGBT rights, believe me, but not at the expense of children who are already in a bad situation. These places closing is not doing the children any favours at all.

Iris –

"Sammy, read what I said again. These RC agencies are NOT looking for the best parents for the children, they are seeking to inflict their own personal beliefs on the way they carry out their job."

Correction, they are looking for the best heterosexual parents for these children. Just because we are not being considered does not mean these children aren't going to good homes.

"This means that if they had, for example, ten potential sets of parents for a child and the best parent was gay, they would rather place that child with a WORSE parent than one who's gay."

This is true. However, that does not mean the parents the child is placed with is bad, it just means that we aren't considered. I'd rather the child have the oppurtunity to be placed with a good couple who aren't gay and us not be considered, than the child not have that oppurtunity at all. They would lose that oppurtunity if the place closes down.

"You'd think that would bother them if they care about the child – they don't. They care about promoting hatred and their own religious dogma ABOVE THE NEEDS OF THE CHILD."

As stated in a previous comment, even if these places aren't willing to place them with any couple as long as they're suitable, we should be willing to put the child's needs above ourselves. Yes, the discrimination is wrong and I of course, do not agree with it. However, it is my opinion that the children would suffer if these places close, just so we can feel a little more satisfied.

"Do you get it now?"

Please don't be so condescending. I understood it from the beginning, just because I don't agree does not mean I lack understanding. In fact, it seems to me that you are so blinded by your need for LGBT rights that you can't understand my point.

"(I also think you're getting muddled between care homes for children and adoption agencies because you mentioned dusrupting their lives/places where they are cared for)."

Yes, I did get slightly muddled up making my earlier point, I apologise.

"If you were really concerned with the interests of the child, you'd agree that they be placed with the BEST PARENTS FULL STOP."

Of course I agree that they should be placed with the best parents possible, but you have to be realistic. If these places are going to CLOSE, that is no longer in the best interest of the child. The next best thing is that we are no considered, the place stays open and the children still have the oppurtunity to be placed with SOMEONE rather than NO ONE.

Will –

"I'm curious Sammy, as to why you think putting children with gay couples is not in the best interest of the child?"

You have not understood my point here. My point was not that placing children with gay parents is not in their best interests. My point was that placing them with ANY suitable parents is in their best interests. If these places close down, those children lose that oppurtunity. I'd rather they had as much chance as possible without us being considered, than us be considered but the place close down.

"Do you think an orphanage is the best place for them? I think not, if you have red the Ryan Report in Ireland on the abuses that go on in these so called "christian" institutions by catholic priests."

It is precisely because I think the orphanage is not the best place for them, that I think these places should stay open and the children not lose another oppurtunity to get out. It seems to me that you are failing to see the contradiction in what you are saying here. If these places close, the children lose out on another chance of getting out of the orphanage. Although they are being denied a chance by these places by them not considering gay couples as parents, they have more of a chance if the place is still open.

"Perhaps if you spend less time siding with these bunch of religious bigots, and actually doing your homework, you'd see that every study done shows that gay couples can be as good, or better, than heterosexual parents. Seem to me that letting gay parents adopt is in the interest of the child."

I am well aware of the studies that you are talking about. I am also well aware that lesbian couples tend to be better. Please don't assume I know nothing about this subject, as I am friends with a couple who adopted two children and spend most of my spare time trying to educate people who are opposed to us about the facts of gay adoption and gay people in general.

"And if you had a "christian" adoption agency refusing to allow white children with black parents, on "moral grounds", would you still think this was putting the child first?"

This fits in with my earlier point that eventually, history will condemn them and it will simply no longer be an issue. Of course I wouldn't agree that THEY are doing the best for the child, but them closing down for the sake of US isn't doing the best for the child either. I'd rather they stayed open and did the best by the child without considering us, than they close down and the children lose out on an oppurtunity for placement.

"Its should never be for the religious to decide the welfare of the child based on their so called principals, especially given the catholic version of "welfare" involves abusing these children. It is for the state to ensure the welfare of its children."

Whilst I agree that there are terrible cases of abuse, these happen everywhere, not just in religious institutions. There are some religious institutions that have done and continue to do good work, despite their views about us. Bad people do good things sometimes.

(Report comment to the moderator)

I'm curious Sammy, as to why you think putting children with gay couples is not in the best interest of the child? Do you think an orphanage is the best place for them? I think not, if you have red the Ryan Report in Ireland on the abuses that go on in these so called "christian" institutions by catholic priests.

Perhaps if you spend less time siding with these bunch of religious bigots, and actually doing your homework, you'd see that every study done shows that gay couples can be as good, or better, than heterosexual parents. Seem to me that letting gay parents adopt is in the interest of the child.

And if you had a "christian" adoption agency refusing to allow white children with black parents, on "moral grounds", would you still think this was putting the child first? Its should never be for the religious to decide the welfare of the child based on their so called principals, especially given the catholic version of "welfare" involves abusing these children. It is for the state to ensure the welfare of its children.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)