Originally posted by karoly aczel
Barking up this tree again are we...
Ok, lets go!
1. I am not homosexual or particulary homo-friendly
2. I believe that a good mother is often the best thing for a young child.

Having stated that, let me use my own situation as an illustration for my point.
I am a single dad with a 5yr old. If I had another worthy male living with us and helpin ...[text shortened]... .
Of course he would need female influence, but he could get that fro aunties or nannies, etc.

i can kind of understand where you are coming from, for my wife was hospitalised immediately after my son was born and remained in hospital for about three months. basically as the father i had to 'prove', to social services that i was competent enough to look after my kid, but i could not do it alone, i needed the help of my mother and aunties. its seems to me that male and female have intrinsic qualities , lacking in each other, but when presented as a composite whole, compliment each other, my misgivings on same sex couples would be that these qualities would be lacking, otherwise, i need to conclude that men an women are essentially the same and that there is no difference.

Originally posted by ua41
The issue is humanist more so than religious. The argument that she feels hetero couples provide a better possible environment than homosexual is a joke. I don't think it needs to be said that there are homosexual couples that will outshine a mom and dad in plenty of examples (and, of course, the reverse as well). But you're not always going to get an available ...[text shortened]... public service is going to restrict the well being of a child simply on partial convictions.

It really doesn't matter whether she is right or wrong. You may consider her moral reasoning thoroughly suspect. That is not the issue; the issue is whether her religious conviction exempts her from particular types of work in the council.

And just for balance, I think it is important to acknowledge that this woman did not impose her religious convictions on anyone. She decided not to review candidates for adoption. She respected council policy of non-discrimination.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
one would think that given her qualifications and experience she was not only adequately qualified, but as a professional genuinely thought that it was in the best interests of the child to be part of a heterosexual family unit. I wonder what has driven her to this conclusion? professional experience? her religious convictions? indeed i wonder wha ...[text shortened]... ples are equally suitable for the role of adoptive parents. I mean there must be some criteria?

It doesn't matter what her qualifications are. Remember, she did not want to review cases of adoption.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, ok, you have a point, you were responding to the pre edited text, i understand, now lets move on please, for the sake of discussion. 🙂

Listen, you're the one who's been forcing me to defend myself against your personal attacks. Now you call for us to "move on please" when the entire diversion was of YOUR making. What chutzpah.

Originally posted by ua41
The issue is humanist more so than religious. The argument that she feels hetero couples provide a better possible environment than homosexual is a joke. I don't think it needs to be said that there are homosexual couples that will outshine a mom and dad in plenty of examples (and, of course, the reverse as well). But you're not always going to get an available ...[text shortened]... or both a male and female influence in one's growing life, but shouldn't it take a village?

mm, some good points, although in the case of adoption, surely the screening process negates totally unsuitable parents, either same sex or heterosexual. i wish could explore these male and female influences.

Originally posted by Conrau K
It really doesn't matter whether she is right or wrong. You may consider her moral reasoning thoroughly suspect. That is not the issue; the issue is whether her religious conviction exempts her from particular types of work in the council.

Whatever convictions they are, she's doing an injustice in a public service and shouldn't have influence over such issues if she's going to let her ideals get in the way of the well being of the people she's supposed to be working for.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Listen, you're the one who's been forcing me to defend myself against your personal attacks. Now you call for us to "move on please" when the entire diversion was of YOUR making. What chutzpah.

just stop whining, for goodness sake and post something with relevance!

Originally posted by Conrau K
It doesn't matter what her qualifications are. Remember, she did not want to review cases of adoption.

yes but we are not yet sure whether this was due to her religious convictions ( i suspect it was) or her professional view (also possibly true), it could be that she really did not think that same sex couples were in the best interests of the kid, for what ever reason and simply rejected them on that basis. i thought i might emphasise her qualifications, for surely she must be professionally qualified to judge cases of adoption, but i understand your point now, in retrospect, this is not indeed the issue.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]A law that protects homosexuals from discrimination is viewed by you as "[discriminating] against religious organizations." Is there something more to the legislation than what was represented in the article?

I don't see how this law specifically 'protects' homosexuals; it simply enables them to adopt. Putting aside the issue of whether same-sex a ...[text shortened]... because in many cases it specifically requires them to violate their religious commitments.[/b]

Sound like it keeps adoption programs from discriminating against homosexuals based on their sexual orientation rather than judging their merits as parents. Sounds like "protection" to me. Adoption programs, religious or otherwise, shouldn't be given the option of continuing to discriminate.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
just stop whining, for goodness sake and post something with relevance!

I made a post that was RELEVANT which you chose to ignore in order to start this onslaught of personal attacks which you STILL seem unable to refrain from.

Originally posted by ua41
Whatever convictions they are, she's doing an injustice in a public service and shouldn't have influence over such issues if she's going to let her ideals get in the way of the well being of the people she's supposed to be working for.

What are you talking about? She does not have influence. She is not the one reviewing adoption cases. Or are you suggesting that to hold any position in government, a person must support same-sex adoption? Because that really is discrimination.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I made a post that was RELEVANT which you chose to ignore in order to start this onslaught of personal attacks which you STILL seem unable to refrain from.

take a deep breath, count to ten, walk around, go listen some jazz, anything, but for goodness sake will you give it up, this thread is not about you, its about something else, I have the unenviable responsibility of informing you that I will respond no more to these petty side issues and personal grievances, i want to pursue the subject, if you don't mind, thank you for your cooperation in this regard, your friend robbie 🙂

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Sound like it keeps adoption programs from discriminating against homosexuals based on their sexual orientation rather than judging their merits as parents. Sounds like "protection" to me. Adoption programs, religious or otherwise, shouldn't be given the option of continuing to discriminate.

Sound like it keeps adoption programs from discriminating against homosexuals based on their sexual orientation rather than judging their merits as parents. Sounds like "protection" to me. Adoption programs, religious or otherwise, shouldn't be given the option of continuing to discriminate.

Well, I believe they should, recognising their right to freedom of religion. I would add that religious organisations should similarly be allowed to exclude openly homosexual teachers from faith-based schools and abortion proponents from Catholic hospitals. The right to freedom of religion must allow religious organisations to freely determine issues according to their religious doctrines. When government requires that a religious organisation must process same-sex adoptions, it interferes with the autonomy of that organisation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
take a deep breath, count to ten, walk around, go listen some jazz, anything, but for goodness sake will you give it up, this thread is not about you, its about something else, I have the unenviable responsibility of informing you that I will respond no more to these petty side issues and personal grievances, i want to pursue the subject, if you don't mind, thank you for your cooperation in this regard, your friend robbie 🙂

Like I keep pointing out: You're the one who continues with the personal attacks and won't let it go. I'm merely defending against your continued dishonest portrayals of the situation.

Originally posted by Conrau K
What are you talking about? She does not have influence. She is not the one reviewing adoption cases. Or are you suggesting that to hold any position in government, a person must support same-sex adoption? Because that really is discrimination.

Maybe I misinterpreted her position on the council- when I read the article it was my impression she has a vote in say for same sex adoption, hence influence over social issues.

It is also not my suggestion to screen for mentioned criteria for a spot in government. But I think it is a requirement of those in government to set aside their biases for the well being of the people they are supposed to support.