I'm sure that would be fair enough in many contexts, Bentham, but when it's a decision to systematically refuse to vote in a certain class of cases because of personal beliefs that have no real relevance to the criteria being voted on, then the person has surely announced: "I'm not really suitable to be a member of this committee, so please kick me out, and find someone who's prepared to do the job."

If she was honest about it, and not just seeking unjustified attention, she would have resigned as soon as it became clear that gay couples would now be able to apply to adopt.

(Report comment to the moderator)

Don't get me wrong; I'm very happy that the homophobe has lost her right to vote, and I hope it sets a precedent.

It's just the procedure that baffles me. Is there such a difference between a committee and a panel? I've never handled a panel.

Thanks for the news, Paul.

(Report comment to the moderator)

. . . sticks to your teeth, difficult to get rid of and causes tooth decay!

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

Well, maybe because she's not actually there to "abstain", she's supposed to take part. If she's decided she can't do her job, she's a waste of space and should be kicked out. These people who who want special dispensation to not do the job they were taken on to do are ridiculous. They are just attention-seekers intent on wasting everyone's time.

(Report comment to the moderator)

We won't beat you up, this time!

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

Thor: You're gay? Gasp! Good comment, about your family, I mean.

(Report comment to the moderator)

Mothers nurturing and fathers challenging? Admittedly it was that way in my house, and I turned out gay…oops! But anyway, homosexuality does not depend on upbringing. On the other hand, the abovementionned stereotypical roles are actually reversed in my uncle's family. Their kids are fine, thank you very much.

(Report comment to the moderator)

Dr Matthews actually wanted to be afforded different and privileged positive discrimination by her employers so that she could continue to negatively discriminate against same sex couples … as she had done before equality legislation was introduced by simply refusing to consider the merits of their applications.

Dr Matthews beef is not that she was discriminated against by her employer but that she wasn't granted special privileges by her employer. She was hoping to discriminate against those she personally disapproved of but failed to convince her employer to collude with her in this and she was rightly dropped.

(Report comment to the moderator)

However, and in all fairness, RobN does have the right to express his opinion, just as the doctor had a right to abstain from voting. This kind of controversy is excellent soil for personal growth, know what I mean?

You make an extraordinarily good point about children wasting away in institutions. My sister adopted three children, and they were all in terrible shape. They are now grown up and well developped, even though her husband left her with the 3 kids on her hands. Yeah, talk to me about the stability of heterosexual couples!

John K: Your clear thinking is just what the doctor needs.

(Report comment to the moderator)

Gay parenting IS natural, IS found in nature, and DOES work well. You only need mixed sex parents to make a child, raising it can be done by any couple. As a matter of fact, that's one of the big theories behind the existence of homosexuality: that gay couples care for the abandoned children of other couples, thus benefitting the existing population without adding any more to their numbers.

Furthermore, children left to languish in care homes don't tend to do very well in life (statistically speaking). Given the dire lack of adoptees nationwide (even worldwide) are you seriously telling me that you want them to stay there rather than have loving homes? You might think gay parents are unnatural (they aren't), but having an institution as a parent just takes the biscuit.

(Report comment to the moderator)

The law is the law.

Christians do not have exemption from it because some of their beliefs do not fit with it. If Christians are worried that some of their beliefs will lead them to break the law, it is time that some of them started to look closely at those beliefs which go against the ethics and morality that the law is there to uphold.

(Report comment to the moderator)

"People's religious beliefs should never trump the law of the land."

I agree, of course, and especially in a democracy. Unless we have equal rights, how can we enjoy equal freedom?

(Report comment to the moderator)

Doctors must not allow their personal beliefs to compromise patient care. If she is willing to let her 'moral' viewpoint get in the way of her adoption job, then the question must be asked whether she treats gay people differently as a doctor. If she does, she should be struck off the General Medical Register. Her job is supposed to be to assess the medical fitness of applicants, she has no place making decisions about the 'moral' suitability of parents.

People's religious beliefs should never trump the law of the land. The law says she has to consider gay applicants for adoption- that is what she must do if she wishes to keep her job. It's not a question of denying her the right to her religious beliefs- she's entitled to them, it's not our fault that her job is incompatible with her unusually harsh views on homosexuals.

The same argument could be made by somebody who doesn't believe white people should be allowed to adopt black children or vice versa- would such a person get as much sympathy? I doubt it!

(Report comment to the moderator)

Would she refuse to treat gay people? Doctors have to be impartial, personal beliefs must not compromise patient care. So how can she allow her personal beliefs to interfere with her sole responsibility in this job- to confirm that applicants are medically fit. She has no business letting her morals decide anything. Doctors like her who refuse to treat gay people equally should be struck off the General Medical Register.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

"Forcing a square peg in to a round hole" . . . ?

. . . what about heterosexuals who cannot conceive through normal sexual intercourse and so resort to invitro fertilisation.

Should they be regards as
* Unnatural
* Be banned from recieveing such treatments on the NHS"

Does this not go against the natural order?

(Report comment to the moderator)

Like that would be a profound reason for me to admonish gay parenting. I base my opinion on the one that so many attack, that of natural process. I am not going to spout Biblical rhetoric or "God's will" – more that life finds a way of doing things, and in this case, it requires two sexes. There is more than just accident in that fact. If homosexuals could naturally support children, it would have happened a long time ago. However, it hasn't and some people are trying to force a square peg in a round hole. Homosexuality is natural, if a little unusual. Gay parenting is just unnatural. Period. Don't blame me for stating that fact, it's just the way the world turns.

Oh, and incidentally, I don't have any friends. Hell is other people.

(Report comment to the moderator)