« Cameron's new "crusade" embraces rights of Muslim women | Main | Lidington calls on Sinn Fein to match words and deeds »

Comments

I,m not dure that it's a wish to "behave authentically", more a matter of wanting to act as they believe. I fear that it's this commendable level of conviction that estranges Mr Cameron.

Apologies for the typo - the first verb is "sure".

There is a deep and unresolved tension between David Cameron saying that he wants public policy to encourage more faith-based social action but then hesitating to support the freedom of faith-based groups to behave authentically.

The reason is possibly found in the observations of the Archbishop of Canterbury, when he stated that it was becoming impossible for Christians to state their views without being accused of something ‘akin to holocaust denial or racial bigotry’. The Catholic Church has been appallingly misrepresented in the media, and the aggression of the 'gay lobby' consequently perceived to be the epitome of enlightenment values. The Archbishop continued: ‘If disagreement is to be silenced because offence may be caused, that is not good for intellectual life.’

There is something about modern politics which is incompatible with intellectual discourse. The Conservative Party is now so afraid of saying the wrong thing or offending one group of people, that it no longer has the courage to say what is manifestly right and just.

Minette Marrin understands what the issues are here. This from her Sunday Times column:

"Since many charities are based on religious faith, their values are somewhat exclusive.

To try to change that is to try to destroy the charity. That is what is likely to happen to the Catholic adoption charities. The losers will be the most hard-to-place children, whom Catholic charities have an excellent record in helping. Those like Gordon Brown and David Cameron who want to make use of the energies of charity should be careful not to repress them instead.

I call them charities because they are not agencies of state. Increasingly, though, they are becoming so. For many years I have been involved with a charity for adults with learning disabilities, for some of those years as a trustee, and I have watched it being turned into a provider of services for the state sector and, in effect, an agency of state. It does excellent work, but its services and its clients are largely decided by local authorities. Its development has been both driven and restricted by the requirements of local authorities, who pay the clients’ fees and call the tune; the original pioneering ideal of the parent-founders, no longer politically correct, has been subsumed.

For some time there has been an orthodoxy in social work training and thinking; the result is that this orthodoxy is imposed, via social services’ funding, on private charities. If the Catholic charities are deprived of state funding by local authorities, they will have to close. That’s not blackmail on their side — the bullying boot is on the other foot entirely.

True charity is heartfelt and personal and for that reason may well be unorthodox, or even politically very incorrect. Charities should be allowed to do what they believe is right and not forced to do what they believe is wrong. Isn’t it enough they do good in some way, if not in all? The green shoots and flowers of charity are tender and very diverse; the state should not be allowed to mow them all down."

That is so true. I have been in the position of being able to watch social services slide down this path for many years. The lecturerers and profs. of sociology are equally if not more to blame, as they produced this ethos in the first place.

"the faith-based projects will decide that they had better remain independent of government"

I think faith-based projects absolutely should remain independent of government, and the best thing a government could do would be to avoid meddling with them.

How come then Catholic adoption agencies are able to place children with single gay men? It makes no sense.

D'Ancona's cowardly witterings on p25 are, fortunately, balanced by a superb article by Roger Scruton "This 'right' for gays is an injustice to children" immediately opposite.

And it's good to see that John Hayes and Julian Brazier are standing up for common decency and the silent majority (not only of Tories among whom it must be a very big majority indeed) but also of the British public as a whole.

As so often the Christian Churches, and the Muslims too, speak for our nation. What a shame that under the so-called leadership of Cameron our party has shown only rank cowardice on this issue.

It is not the government that will close these agencies it is the catholic church. They have no problem having children being adopted by single gay men or remarried couples. How does what two parents enjoy to do in the bedroom effect their parenting skills ? The church shouldn't be allowed to be a little bit bigotted. If the church really wants to put the children first, how does walking away help.

Quite right Will. But after 'SundayAM' on the 'Heaven & Earth' prog a Catholic priest said that the Cardinal was quite wrong to threaten to close the Catholic adoption agencies- a very welcome comment. There may be 'trouble ahead' for the cardinal within his own ranks if he does go ahead and close those adoption agencies.

Should gay clubs be forced to hold religious services? Should Conservative Central Office have to consider Labour-supporting people to be the secretary to Francis Maude? Should Channel 4 have to advertise Sky TV programmes? I do not understand this fascist desire to impose views on other people unless there are reasons of overwhlming importance.

Perhaps the most worrying thing about this debate is that it is being couched in terms which have nothing to do with what is in the best interests of the children potentially effected. Morally and legally this is the overriding issue particularly in terms of things like the UN convention on the rights of the child, which states that "in all actions concerning children... the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration".

We should be hearing arguments couched in terms of what is in the best interests of adopted children, or children who will end up staying in care, not in terms of rights to parenthood or rights to equality - no matter how important they may be, they must come after discussion of the rights of the child. This is something which, in this debate, is not happening at all.

I should add, that this should apply as much to the Catholic church, which in my eyes does itself no favours in its threat to close adoption agencies. They, as much as the Government, seem to me to be letting other issues crowd out what's really important.

Why should David Davis be planning to vote against anything? The Equality Act was passed in 2006.

In his weakened position, I doubt Blair will even try to get an Amending Act through Parliament. Then again, this should be a cause for celebration; the Catholic Church should not have any role to play in social policy.

"The church shouldn't be allowed to be a little bit bigotted"

They can be as bigotted as they like as far as I'm concerned, provided they don't impose their bigotry on others, provided nobody is forced to give them financial or other support, and provided they don't commit or incite others to commit criminal offences - by which I mean real criminal offences, not Orwellian offences created by governments to criminalise their political and ideological opponents. I'd rather live in a free country and put up with their bigotry, than live in the kind of country where anybody who expresses unorthodox views is risking a visit from the police:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07012606.html

"France MP Fined for Criticizing Homosexuality Under “Hate Speech” Law"
"Former Soviet dissident warns democracy being rapidly dismantled in Europe"

perhaps the Editor would like to explain what he means when he talks of "very vulnerble children" being placed with gay couples. Is the vulnerability of the children relevant in some way? Can less vulnerable chiuldren be safely placed with gay couples? Or, is he deliberately using language that raises the temperature of the debate - not just the prospect of children being placed with 'gays' but nothing less than 'vulnerable children' - shock horror!

The Cathlic Church would only be 'forced' to place children with a couple of course when an independent social worker and a Judge think that that is the best placement for that particular child. The Catholic Church therefore seeks the right to override the best interests of the child.

Let's be honest about why you all oppose this law. It's got nothing to do with 'religious liberty' etc. and everything to do with your belief that there is something inferior about gay people in general and gay parents in particular. Instead of stating that openly you sek to play the victimhod card you so deplore when others seek to play it by banging on about the grwoing tide of anti-Christian feelings/secularism etc etc etc. At least bigots like mr McCartney are honest - he thinks gays are paedophiles as he said the other day on the last thread that exposed the hatred you al feel for gay people. God for him for being honest and shame on you Ed for trying to have to both ways.

I wrote very vulnerable children, Sceptic, because Catholic adoption agencies have a reputation for placing some of the harder-to-place children.

It's the growing tide of totalitarianism that concerns me, in this and other cases.

Totally endorse the views by Sceptic. Each prospetic parent should be judged on there merits. Wether they are gay, hetrosexual, black, white, muslim or christrian should be totally irrelevant.
Equality under the law should be something all Conservatives should speak up for and all this new law is doing is making adoption law more just and equal.
At the end of the day I think opposition to it is bigotry nothing more, nothing less!

It is not the government that will close these agencies it is the catholic church

Actually it is economics. Unlike buying a tin of Heinz Beanz at Tesco adoption requires protracted evaluation of prospective parents and child (perhaps Clare Short can tell us about a Catholic giving up her child for adoption).

The long evaluation costs in total £28.000 which normally the Local Authority reimburses The Church. Under this legislation the Local authority would be prohibited from reimbursing the Catholic Church the £28.000 it costs to prepare an adoption, and indeed many local authorities are slowing adoptions to save money.

So yes, it would be the Roman Catholic Church which would cease to run adoption agencies simply because it could not afford to continue if it were a) to face prosecution from Trevor Phillips and his new Quango with Ben Summerskill of Stonewall aboard.........and b) the £28.000 per adoption cost would be too expensive.


Therefore just park these children in orphanages -

Totally endorse the views by Sceptic. Each prospetic parent should be judged on there merits. Wether they are gay, hetrosexual, black, white, muslim or christrian should be totally irrelevant.

You thereby breach the ECHR and the UN Charter by refusing to acknowledge the desire of the birth parents for their children to be brought up according to their religion.

"And it's good to see that John Hayes and Julian Brazier are standing up for common decency and the silent majority (not only of Tories among whom it must be a very big majority indeed) but also of the British public as a whole."


there's a recent yougov poll about this issue.
Overall 43% of people are against an exemption for Catholic agencies, while 42% are in favour of an opt. 15% don't know.
There's also the breakdown by party. Among Tory voters, 57% are in favour of an opt out and 30% against. Among Labour voters, 49% against the opt out and 36% in favour. Among Libdems, 61% against the opt out and 29% in favour.

UK Polling Report has details on the polling Andrea refers to - here.

Mr Cameron is trying to be all things to all people. Unfortunately he is coming across as someone who would do or say anything to get elected into office. I voted Tory until 1997 I would love to vote Tory again but neither Mr Cameron nor his colleague George Osborne do it for me. The Tories should be in power by now - given the shamables that the New Labour / Old Communist Party have made of this country but neither of these two men appear to able to seize the day. I believe I share these feelings with a large number of UK citizens - we feel that Mr Cameron's New Conservative Party doesn't represent us. I employ nearly 20 people and I'm fed up with the taxes and red tape - I could move my business anywhere in the world within the next three months but my wife and children want to stay here even though they feel the same way that I feel - Cameron doesn't tock the boxes. We need someone like David Davis who represents true Tory values.

At the highest level my concern is about the new totalitarianism. The left seduces the public by prating about equality and many are fooled, for who would be against equality. But who speaks for liberty? And if the interests of liberty and equality clash (as they appear to do in this instance), which takes precendence? My answer is undoubtedly that liberty should always have precendence. Liberty seems to me to the essential element in the British civilization that reached its peak before 1914.

I remain to be convinced that any legislation is necessary. Is there any evidence that gays are being denied any goods or services in any field at all in numbers sufficient to require legislation? In the specifics of adoption, how many suitable gay couples are being denied a chance to adopt, bearing in mind that the Catholic agencies only provide a tiny proportion of adoptions. In practical terms, a gay couple that wants to adopt has plenty of opportunity to apply to 95% of the sector. So what is the real problem?

The answer is not unavailability of opportunity, but Labour mania for controlling everything. The regulations will not increase gay adoptions one jot, but it will send a message and placate one of its many lobby groups that all need regular “sweeteners”. This is gesture politics at its worst.

In the olden days, people used to grumble occasionally “there ought to be a law against it” (whatever “it” was); now thanks to Labour, there is, and also against practically everything else!

Catholic charities should not judge Homosexuals on the actions of their own priests.

Not all Homosexuals rodger the choir boys at every oppurtunity.

Should Conservative Central Office have to consider Labour-supporting people to be the secretary to Francis Maude?
Or a Catholic or Gay to work in the Free Presbyterian Manse - I remember hearing Joan Rivers saying in a debate that there should be rules on who people dated to ensure equal opportunities to different ethnic groups, it sounds absurd but who knows what might previously have been something jokily said as being something that would never happen that might become part of the mainstream of the political correctness agenda?

>>Among Tory voters, 57% are in favour of an opt out and 30% against<<

And I've no doublt that among Tory members the "opt out" figure is overwhelming.

>>Not all Homosexuals rodger the choir boys at every oppurtunity.<<

Of course not, but when this was last discussed a few days ago I mentioned that despite the fact that gays represent only a tiny proportion of the population, all four jailed child molesters I have known personally were males who abused young boys.

While this is purely anecdotal evidence I can hardly think that my experience is unique.

Surely there have been studies as to the orientation of convicted paedophiles?

>>I remember hearing Joan Rivers saying in a debate that there should be rules on who people dated to ensure equal opportunities to different ethnic groups<<

Not entirely off-topic I have wondered for years why Premier League soccer teams are not required to take on a quota of women (not to mention disabled people, transsexuals etc.)

Perhaps those contributors who tell us we must accept gay adoption because the state has determined on our behalf that we all believe in enforced equality, would care to explain this anomaly?

I think some men have a good time without the expense of wooing £30,000, marrying and buying a home,£300,000, keeping a wife and children £200,000 and reach the age of 40 or so thinking that they have missed out on being a father. So they have worked out that they can save themselves £½ Million by adopting.

That is one root of the problem; the other root is the simple question is whether the guys have lost their looks and are now looking for companionship? Who is going to decide on where the companionship may end?

" Surely there have been studies as to the orientation of convicted paedophiles ? "

Their orientation is surely that they are paedophiles - ie they are sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children.

I think we can all agree that paedophiles shouldn't adopt children.

Mark - somebody who was disabled is not prevented from playing top level football - Paul Scholes and his chronic ashma or Gordon Banks having one eye. If a woman could reach the physical level of male players the rules would change. In other top sports which are less physical women can compete, for example many golf tournaments are open to both sexes if they can qualify.

There is no quota for gay adoptions. They just have the same chance to adopt as everyone else, judged on their abilities as potential parents.

>>Their orientation is surely that they are paedophiles - ie they are sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children.<<

That's a cop-out if ever there was one. I would guess that the number of paedopihiles purely attracted to underage children would be very small indeed. Most are going to be men who have an established gay straight or bisexual lifestyle.

Three of the four men I referred to lived openly as homosexuals. The fourth was a senior Tory Councillor who was married with children. However when I was Chairman and later President of the Young Conservatives I received several "complaints" (more like sly tale-telling to be truthful) from male YCs he had attempted to compromise. At the time I confess we all thought it was a great joke and never assumed for one minute that he would turn out to be a paedophile.

>>Mark - somebody who was disabled is not prevented from playing top level football - Paul Scholes and his chronic ashma or Gordon Banks having one eye. If a woman could reach the physical level of male players the rules would change.<<

That's another cop out. How many one-legged footballers are there in the Premiership? Obviously they're being discriminated against. Make every team take at least one.

As for women, if you force all teams to take 50% woman they will all be at an equal disadvantage.

These egalitarians want to have their cake and eat it.


Mark - there are no quotas in adoption just like there are no quotas in football.

Potential parents and footballers are judged on their abilities alone.

Please return to the thread. This thread is not so much about the homosexual lifestyle but about the freedom of churches to run their own affairs within certain limits.

Since gays who want to adopt can go to non-Church agencies this is all about forcing religion to conform - Stalinist style.

Personally I think it is intolerable that any person in favour of this totalitarian legislation could claim to be a Conservative.

The best Conservatives - IDS a case in point - are good Christians also.

You have just put the nail on the head Mr Editor. Churches should have the freedom to run there activities within certain limits. Those limits should be that they treat all as equals.

When is somebody going to make the freedom of association argument? Instead of debates over the acceptable or unacceptability of homosexual parents we should be standing up for the right of private organisations and individuals to deal with whom they wish on whatever terms they wish.

Everyone as a duty to conform to sheer decency wether they are churches or not, and Churches should show decency by not defending discrimination.

"You have just put the nail on the head Mr Editor. Churches should have the freedom to run there activities within certain limits. Those limits should be that they treat all as equals."

And who are you to tell them who they treat people? I have no objection to homosexual organisations not allowing heterosexual members because a)I can understand why they wouldn't and b)it's none of my business. If I don't approve of an organisation's practices I'll start a boycott campaign, not run crying to the government to solve the problem for me.

*how they treat people

Such nonsense is being written about this "issue". Nobody has a "right" to a child, whether to conceive one or to adopt one. Children in the care of any organisation, whether state-run or state-sanctioned, do have a right to have their needs assessed with respect to potential adopters. I don't understand how you could possibly write down in law (or theological tract) a complete set of adopter-characteristics that would rule out all people To Be Banned From Adopting, since I don't understand how you could possibly write down all the needs of the infinite set of children-to-be-adopted. It's quite easy to write down SOME aspects of your life which would probably rule you out: in prison, congential drug abuser etc etc. But gay? What if I were an uncle and my brother and his wife were killed in a car crash? Should his children be prevented from being adopted by me, regardless of how well we were fit, because it would be much better to send them to an orphanage? What nonsense. Minette Marin's piece this morning was tremendous I thought. Not for the first time she seems to be the only Sunday journalist able to maintain perspective and humanity.

What's unsettling about this "issue" is that it doesn't feel like it's anything to do with adoption process and everything to do with some people in some churches trying to make some waves for themselves. There is, of course, a disquieting irony in the figurehead of this particular piece of politicking setting himself up as a universal judge of who is most fit to look after children. I don't know how he looks at himself in the mirror.

Richard if we did that we would go back to the bad old days when landlords put up notices in the windows of there property," no blacks welcome here"

Jack Stone - if you thought a little more about the issues before posting, your opinion would be a little more rounded and your tedious spelling mistakes might diminish.

"Jack Stone - if you thought a little more about the issues before posting, your opinion would be a little more rounded and your tedious spelling mistakes might diminish."

His spelling mistakes are so obviously contrived he is obviously a pure troublemaker from another party.

Graeme Archer - I agree with your start but not much afterwards. It wasn't the Catholic Church that started grandstanding, but the Labour equality zealots. The Catholic Church would have been quite happy to have continued in a practical way, but it was Labour that was concerned to indulge in gesture politics appeasing Stonewall et al. As an aside - why should we respect the views of one of the main agitators, an MP who advertises himself for gay sex on the internet wearing just underpants (perhaps we should be grateful for that small mercy!)?

In the Sunday Telegraph, Anthony Booker points out the the original EU Directive only covered employment, not things like charitable activities. Moreover it provided various freedom of conscience clauses. So, if Labour had wanted to, it could have avoided all this controversy, while complying with the EU Directive.

You are right that the concern should be child centred, in which case all the talk of “gay adoption rights” is misleading. There would only be an issue about discrimination if: a) there were a “right to adopt” and b) adoption were analagous to the provision of goods and services. In our culture children are not chattels.

Some have pointed out that Catholic adoption agencies will consider single gay people as adopters and decry this as inconsistent. I don’t think it is. The Church’s objection is not to gay orientation but gay lifestyle. It wants to protect traditional marriage and fears that a young child brought up in a “gay marriage” would inevitably form a distorted picture, which might inevatably affect its own later life.

I thoroughly recommend Roger Scruton’s article in the Sunday Telegraph


You have just put the nail on the head Mr Editor. Churches should have the freedom to run there activities within certain limits. Those limits should be that they treat all as equals.

Posted by: Jack Stone | January 28, 2007 at 16:15

NO ! Jack Stone you do not interfere in Religion or you will watch your State disintegrate. You may have been poorly educated but the basis of this country's stability was set in 1649, 1660, 1689, 1701, 1703, 1707.

It is ignorant people like Jack Stone that will set the world on fire. Don't you think these little stunts by Hain, Harman, Johnson etc are now coursing the Internet in Arabic ?

This is fuel to the fire for Al-Qaeda. The West will destroy Islam just as it has tried to neuter Christianity.

It seems pointless condemning the Muslims for having a Laager Mentality and circling the waggons. The Secular State is waging a Kulturkampf against religion and it could not be more evident than in recent days.

Graeme @ 16:20 - "But gay? What if I were an uncle and my brother and his wife were killed in a car crash? Should his children be prevented from being adopted by me, regardless of how well we were fit, because it would be much better to send them to an orphanage?"

I'm sure that in the past it was not that uncommon for an orphan to be sent to live with a bachelor uncle - in fact we had two brothers who were orphaned in the war living next door in exactly those circumstances, when I was growing up - or with a maiden aunt who happened to share her house with another lady, her companion, and there were no particular problems. It was just that nobody talked much about homosexual relationships then. This is why personally I'm fairly relaxed about gay adoption, thinking that any wrong 'uns will be weeded out. But I'm NOT relaxed about the steady erosion of our freedom and the slide towards totalitarianism.

As a gay atheist, I don't want any of my taxes to be put into any kind of 'faith-based' initiatives if they exhibit any degree of bigotry.

If religious people want to maintain their religious beliefs and organisations *at their own expense*, fine by me - but the taxpayer's funds should only ever fund Reason-based initiatives!

If there is no harm in children living in a male homosexual household then why are the proponents of such an idea so shy about discussing the reality of what that child will have knowledge and experience of.
These advocates will only use vague adjectives such as gay, why can't we have an honest debate about the sexual acts that these adopted children will inevitably become aware of. If at the end of the day our society approves of the situation when it has to confront the reality of it, then so be it and we will have to live with our consciences if we are wrong.

Some years ago a rich local businessman who was well known to be a homosexual held a party for local conservatives at his big country home he shared with his "partner" who, incidentally, was a car mechanic.

Attending with my wife we admired his antique furniture. Then in one of our rooms we were horrified to see a pile of pornographic magazines on a table. The one on the top showed lurid anal sex.

Frankly we were disgusted. I can only assume he and his friends were so used to having this filth round the house they forgot they were there. We werent the only people who were offended and he must have cleared them away because they were gone half an hour later. I nearly said something myself but my wife asked me not to mention it.

I also noted a row of VHS which from the idiotic obscene titles on the spines of the cases must have been gay porn. I wasnt sorry when this man left the area some time afterwards.

If that's a typical gay household is that the kind of thing you want left around for young children to see?

Graeme,

Let me try to step in to this debate with a Catholic perspective that I hope might clarify things.

The Church believes that extra-marital sex is wrong, is immoral. It isn't a question of gay and straight, but of married and unmarried.

It cannot place a child in a home where the child is guaranteed to be exposed to immorality.

Therefore, the Church will not place children with adoptive parents who are cohabiting outside of marriage - whether they are gay OR straight. The law allows unmarried heterosexual couples to adopt, but the Catholic Church would not place children with these straight couples either.

It would place children in homes that accord with Catholic teaching - either single people or married people. That's the division for Catholics, not "gay or straight". That is why the Church is quite happy to place a child with a loving gay single parent. As long as the parent is not cohabiting outside of marriage.

No co-habiting couples, gay or straight - so single gay people are fine because it is the extra-marital sex that is the problem.

This applies to all children as the Church cannot place a child in what it considers to be a fundamentally immoral situation, where the child will grow up thinking sex outside marriage is OK.

I hope you can see the difference. The Church would happily place with a gay single person, and just as firmly refuse a straight but co-habiting couple as a gay one.

I understand that you believe that gay civil partnerships are the same as marriage, but in Catholic belief, they are not, since Catholics follow the teaching of Christ in Matthew who said that marriage was created "because God made them male and female".

Under the law gay couples can adopt and plenty of agencies can place children with them. Catholic agencies place children with loving fit parents who are both gay and straight. They simply cannot place a child with an unmarried couple.

At the end of the day in my eyes discrimation against someone on grounds of sex. religion, colour or sexuality is wrong wether it is practiced by the church or anyone else.
I am afriad far too many on this site seem unable to even comprehend the fact that being gay does not mean you are attracted to children i. Gays are just as likely to gay to bed with a child as hetrosexuals are.
I am afraid there are so many right-wingers on this site whenever you discuss anything prejudiced and bigotry pours out from every word. I thought the nasty party was dead and buried but whenever I come on this site I can`t help but think that its not quite dead yet.
By the way Mr deadhead who mentioned the spelling and the fact that he thought I was from another party. Grow Up!

"I thought the nasty party was dead and buried but whenever I come on this site I can`t help but think that its not quite dead yet"

Too right Jack Stone.

It's called the Labour Party. I'd like to tell you to clear off and join them but I suspect you're a member already.

If religious people want to maintain their religious beliefs and organisations *at their own expense*, fine by me - but the taxpayer's funds should only ever fund Reason-based initiatives!

Yes but religious people pay taxes so I think they should be exempt from paying any in future so they can live at their own expense

Maybe we can have separate towns and separate government ? This idea should appeal to many Muslims and saudi arabia can certainly help fund matters simply by increasing oil prices.

John Irvine go and troll somewhere will you? In a crowded field your comments are the most witless and nasty to appear on this site.I really think that you are a follower of some other political party who thinks it clever to try and portray Tories as some kind of unthinking neanderthals. The joke has worn very thin.

Hear hear, Malcolm.

I too wish the ukip trolls would go away. John with his repellent equating of gay people and paedophiles does not speak for me or for the party.

As to DC being out of touch with most Conservatives, in the non-loony world he received 2/3 of the votes and a huge Built to Last victory on top.

Well you certainly do not represent me Tory T.

When I joined the Conservative Party, years ago, to defend the values I held dear I could have had no idea that I would end up defending common decency against this appalling policy and that so-called Conservatives would be supporting it.

Frankly I'm disgusted with some of the comments I have read here.

Tory T said "John with his repellent equating of gay people and paedophiles "

Well Tory T, if your understanding of what it is to be a "gay " man as opposed to a paedophile is superior to us less enlightened folks, then perhaps you could give us an unabridged definition of what it is that "gay" men do and why you think that their company benefits a small child who may have been taken into care from a family consisting of a mum and dad.

People might be interested to note that a London Lite (sic) newspaper poll revealed that only 46% of readers agreed that gay couples should be allowed to adopt while fully 54% said that they should not be able to. This is in supposedly übercool London.

Only 20 years ago, the whole issue of "gay adoptions" would have been supported by only a couple of ultra Looney Left Councils in London. Today even the Conservative Party leadership is afraid to say publicly what it thinks for fear of "offending" minority groups.

I suspect that many Conservative MPs are opposed to adoption by same-sex couples, and are among the "silent" majority to hold this view.

Alexa - 100 years ago, women who wanted the vote were considered the lunitic liberal fringe.

What would Conservatives at that time think of the type of women who would choose to become a councillor, neglecting her role within the family.

Luckily we have become more enlightened - we don't judge people based on their gender.

Sexuality is the last barrier to equality - and we are getting through it. It is difficult for older conservatives, as other reforms have been in the past, but in another twenty years time we will be wondering what the fuss was.

Larry I suggest you read my post to Graeme above.

Personally, I believe children should only be placed with single people or married couples. However, it is pure hate speech and nonsense to say that all gay men are paedophiles. Homosexuals are adults sexually attracted to adults of the same sex. Paedophiles are filthy perverts attracted to children and much abuse occurs in the home where men abuse little girls.

There is no equation of the two whatsoever and I feel a little unclean even having to spell it out. And I apologise to all homosexual people reading this thread for the repellent bile spewed in their direction.

Really Editor if you are going to post threads on this issue I have to suggest comment moderation some of the stuff on this thread does our party no credit at all - I point out again that it is mostly anti=Tory pro-ukip trolls like Irvine frothing forth this revolting tripe.

Malcolm your intolerance of free speech is as appalling as it is hysterical and Tory T whoever he may be, is on much the same lines.

I never said all homosexuals were paedophiles. I don't think anybody else did either.

I joined the party many years ago and I don't need Malcolm's instructions on how I should think. I doubt that when I joined ANY Tory would have expressed the opinions he does now and I firmly believe, based on experience, that the majority think much the same as I do today.

Cllr Alexa Michael's post proves the point. Good for her! Some of the other so-called Conservatives here would be better off in the Labour Party.

I would add that Tory T, foaming at the mouth with hatred for anybody who doesn't agree with him and whom of course he wants censored, hasnt even got the courage to put his name to his posts.

Jack Stone "I am afraid there are so many right-wingers on this site whenever you discuss anything prejudiced and bigotry pours out from every word"

There are plenty of opposing views that have used rational argument: Cranmer, Tom Tom, Denis Cooper among others. Labelling opponents as bigots does nothing to advance the debate.

I appreciate David Cameron's initial desire to rid the party of its alleged "nasty" image, but sooner or later we have got show some conviction about issues. A wishy washy, "me too" approach on every issue will earn contempt rather than respect amongst the electorate.

It ought to be possible for clever policy wonks to devise a position, supporting the general thrust of the draft regulations, but at the same time allowing limited exceptions for matters of conscience. After all this was envisaged in the original EU Directive. The position could be presented as both principled and pragmatic. And it would be a true conservative policy where practicality overrides dogma (i.e. the opposite of Labour)

Another interesting thread on this sensitive issue, marred only by unthinking abuse from a few. Some either blatant trolling or thoughtless posts do not do this topic justice, nor does calling your colleagues "so-called Conservatives". You don't get to decide that, strangely.

I posted some reasonably detailed thoughts on this earier in the week here and they still stand. Firstly I have, with the greatest of respect, to disagree with the stance of some of my more socially conservative colleagues, some of whom I understand make their points through deeply held religious conviction, and ask them to genuinely try and participate in the thought experiment that I proposed there before. However, the same freedom that enables me to disagree with their beliefs enables them to pursue them, provided we are both mindful that we do no harm to others.

Secondly, and more on-topic, is the issue of whether faith-based charities, or charitable groups in general, should be allowed to preferentially help some sections of society rather than others. I think in recent threads discussing the concept of "social responsibility" that the Party has been promoting and expanding upon, we have sometimes concluded that although the use of voluntary groups is a helpful idea to drive policy and the provisions of services, the capacity required eventually in the voluntary sector would probably not be there immediately. Hence voluntary groups currently already serve different groups differently on grounds of geographical location and their own capacity.

My point is that while I do not support discrimination by faith-based groups, having them there providing services to some is surely far better than their not being there at all. Alternate provision for those they pass on is obviously essential. But I am not convinced that attempting to change deeply held religious beliefs by legislation, however misguided you or I might personally feel individual tenets to be, would ever be productive. If we're going to back a plurality of provision, I wonder if we have to accept inequality between different agents, and ensure that variety plugs the gaps.

Good post Richard.I think your views and mine are fairly similar although I also agree with Martin Wright that we do need to show conviction on issues and not everything should be based on extracting party political advantage.
I am wholly in favour of free speech John Irvine, even to you. But I do find it hard to believe that a real member of the Conservative party should demonstrate the unthinking bigotry that you do in every single post.

The silence of the Conservative leadership is astonishing in view of the SOR’s attack freedom of religion and to live according to conscience that we have always taken for granted in this country. So maybe the issue of the freedom for faith-based groups to retain the religious ethos which partly explains their efficacy the Editor points to, will help DC to come off the fence to defend freedom.

But it seems not even the lower motivation of the prospect of gaining votes will. Somebody who has been quite anti-Tory told me he is so disgusted with this Sexual Orientation Regulation (SOR) that he’s seriously thinking of voting Tory because of THIS issue. Many Catholic Labour voters (including in Scotland) may be getting alienated from Labour, and I recall that a large number of Afro-Caribbean pastors wrote to the press before Christmas expressing opposition, and a large number from those communities are Christians. So there must be votes up for grabs if the Tories were to oppose the SORs and promise their repeal (I realise they are a result of an EU Directive… better off out…)

From what I’ve read of various comments on this issue in past weeks, it seems that even some homosexuals, who would thoroughly disagree with the church, are against this illiberal and authoritarian legislation, perhaps because it not the role of the state to override conscience. Maybe that’s one root of this controversy: the Big State’s Clunking Fist seeking to use legislation to impose conformity to a particular view. Another reason for Conservatives to oppose the SORs.

How would we feel about BNP run, state funded, homeless shelters that don't allow blacks in ?

They would be doing a good job helping the white homeless off the streets. Should the state intervene and make them take in black homeless people ? or would we just respect their sincerely held views and commend their good work.

Will, it had crossed my mind that female suffrage was an outrageous idea to many people once. However, you are confusing two entirely different issues.

Children placed for adoption are, by definition, the most disadvantaged and the most in need of a secure family life. Some will have had terrible experiences, and all have natural parents who cannot or will not look after them.

Such children, I believe, desperately need a stable family life in order for them to grow up into happy and secure adults. They need a MOTHER and a FATHER - role models of each sex. All the surveys taken indicate that married couples are far more likely to remain together than unmarried couples. I am not making this up to suit my argument - these are FACTS.

Children are also very conscious of being "different" to their peers. There are cases where children with two "daddies" or two "mummies" are taunted (perhaps even bullied) by their peers at school. Again, this is not something I would wish on any child, particularly those with troubled backgrounds.

'Family values' and the need for children to have a secure upbringing remain constant, in my opinion. I actually think much of today's unhappiness stems from 'permissiveness.' Surveys show that people are no happier today than they were 50 years ago.

By the way, I am aged 38.

Alexa - thanks for your response.

" They need a MOTHER and a FATHER - role models of each sex."

So why does the Catholic church consider single gay men as suitable adopters.

" Children are also very conscious of being "different" to their peers. There are cases where children with two "daddies" or two "mummies" are taunted "

Children do pick up on the predjudices of their parents but in general are more tolerant. Many children these days do not come from a 'standard' family unit. Lets deal with any taunting as we would if they were being racist.

"Surveys show that people are no happier today than they were 50 years ago. "

Surveys taken 50 years ago would have shown the same and so will ones in fifty years time. We have a fondness to the past. We remember the good and forget the bad.

By the way, I'm 34, married, hetrosexual and have two children.

250+ comments on the other thread and more here just go to show the importance of sexuality and religion and the even greater importance of driving them back into the home and out of politics.

They split people within and across parties.

Conservative policy should be to offer them up to referenda and to agree to enact the result and then to shut up and keep its head down as the fur and spittle flies.

Despite reading the above, we must trust in the wisdom of crowds. It's what being a democracy means.

You may have been poorly educated but the basis of this country's stability was set in 1649, 1660, 1689, 1701, 1703, 1707
1660 and 1707 weren't such good examples - after King Charles II was crowned he soon began to take action against many Puritans and soon thereafter expelled Presbyterian ministers from the Church of England and Reformed Church of Scotland and on top of that introduced patronage which resulted in many useless drunken ministers being put in place because it suited the purposes of some local Laird who wanted to clear people out and wanted their man in, although from 1690 to 1711 Patronage was not in effect and Presbyterianism was restored to the Reformed Church of Scotland from 1690 on even after the restoration of patronage, in Scotland this ultimately resulted in many sects such as the Covenanters in the 17the & 18th century (who eventually formed into the Reformed Presbyterian Church), Reformed Synod in 1712, Licht Churches in the 18th century, Congregationalists in 1800 and most famously after the ruling illegal in 1843 by the Court of Sessions of the 1833 Veto Act (passed by the General Assembly of the Reformed Church of Scotland), the Free Church of Scotland formed by a large breakaway group of Evangelicals from the Reformed Church of Scotland - a split that lasts to this day despite the abolition of the Patronage Act in the 1870's throughout Britain.

The Act of Union of the Parliaments in 1707 was done by Scottish aristocrats after a failed venture by Scotland in South America where Scottish settlements had been attacked and no help provided by surrounding settlements, the Act of Union left Scotland with a seperate law but decided by Westminster - something which remained a problem for centuries after and in attempts to solve it has resulted in more problems because devolution in England was not properly addressed at the same time and the Patronage Act which I referred to was actually illegal under the 1707 Act but somehow was put into effect anyway.

So far as the issue goes generally regarding the Catholic Church - one point is that really the best place for children to grow up is a stable nuclear family, I as someone who grew up with my mother and even when we lived in the same house with my father hardly knew him believe that strongly, growing up in a stable single parent family is better than growing up in an unstable nuclear family but humanity and society in general, and it is the natural order as well among the animals that families consist of parents of the opposite gender.

However also I would have to say that the Catholic Church in imposing celibacy on it's priests and nuns (a position not actually even mentioned in the Bible) is not only adding to the Bible but is also putting off many normal people and indeed attracting closet Homosexuals, but also creating perverse temptations for those working with children and other vulnerable people. They are not the only organisation who has had problems with perverts in their organisations, in fact all large organisations do but their methodology seems to tend to generate such problems to a greater extent than other organisations.

So why does the Catholic church consider single gay men as suitable adopters.
Dissaproval of Homosexuality including in the Bible relates to acts, people if they have wicked desires are supposed to resist them, if they resist them then they are triumphing over their desires, it is where they are practising Homosexuals or openly express a notion that it is OK to do such things that they are considered to have gone beyond the realms of acceptability - it is the same with adultery and many other sins, everyone in one way or another is a sinner and undeserving of salvation and only saved through Christ's atoning blood according to both Protestant and Catholic Orthodoxy whether it be Reformed Evangelical, Janseist or Jesuit - the blood of the lamb washes away all sins for those chosen for salvation.

Thanks Yet Another Anon & Tory T at 19:45.

You have added to my understanding.

if you want to vote for someone with proper family values vote for gordon brown. His father was a minister. D C seems to have no moral authority.

I understand that you believe that gay civil partnerships are the same as marriage, but in Catholic belief, they are not, since Catholics follow the teaching of Christ in Matthew who said that marriage was created "because God made them male and female"
It is a reaffirmation that Homosexuality is sinfulness, there isn't marriage because the acts involved are considered a sin and under law from the Old Testament were punishable by death, in fact the term marriage itself did not neccessarily in the Bible involve a church or any form of authority, in the Old Testament some were married in the eyes of God in that they lived as man and wife and marriage as it is now known really is a form of human recording for administrative purposes although in religious organisations for thousands of years it has even in most Protestant denominations been considered that the official wedding is what constitutes the marriage although I know of nowhere in the Bible that specifically defines marriage in that rather legalistic manner.

Posted by: Yet Another Anon | January 29, 2007 at 00:54

Thank you for explaining why these were seminal dates.

Had the Noncomnformists not been subjected to the Test & Corporation Acts Birmingham would never have become an industrial centre of the British Empire and towns like Bradford would not have become major industrial cities.

These dates defined what England became whether you like it or not. The Clarendon Code is directly responsible for Nonconformists building businesses of scale.

The Act of Union of the Parliaments in 1707 was done by Scottish aristocrats after a failed venture by Scotland in South AmericaThe Act of Union of the Parliaments in 1707 was done by Scottish aristocrats after a failed venture by Scotland in South America

The Darien Scheme....but it did happend and it did shape this country's history.

That is why current events are unravelling. When Scotland gets independence it will be aristocrats and money-lenders in the House of Lords who will pass legislation.

You have a grand ability Yet Another not to see the wood for the trees

I hate to write this, but (having deliberately not come back to read what was posted here last night, because I didn't want to give myself dyspepsia before turning in on a Sunday evening!) I want to add my voice to Tory T's calls to have comments moderated whenever CH discusses anything to do with homosexuality. (Which it seems to do a lot by the way. And have you noticed that those Diary items which do, tend to have the largest number of comments? Hmmm)

There is a good debate to be had on the issue of non-state organisations and issues like adoption, between interested and thoughtful people, and you can read those comments here; it's just that you have to wade through a lot of offensive filth to find them.

I think the CH editors have a duty of care to the Conservative Party. While this is an independent site, part of its success is that it is viewed by the old media as a voice of today's Conservatives. I don't see how an Editor can sit back and not consider the impact that Mark McCartney's vicious, unfounded and repeated attempts to equate homosexuality with paedophilia are having on our party's image. Tim, I don't know if you understand just how offensive and wrong such an assertion is? It was made twice by Mark McCartney on this item and was made by him previously on another. You would not permit group libel under various other circumstances, too tedious to spell out in words, so why do you permit it from one or two posters when the issue being discussed is homosexuality?

I hope you know that I'm the last person to be a victim -- just try and discriminate against me and see how far you get!! I'm talking here about the responsibility that all party members have to protect the reputation of our party. I think that reputation is damaged by permitting posters to repeatedly make assertions that are offensive and untrue.

My favourite post of the day - that which is more revealing about the poster than about the point he was trying to make - was the shocked tones in which John Irvine told us that a rich businessman's boyfriend was a car mechanic. Presumably if he'd been a hairdresser all would have remained well in poor John's worldview.

The most offensive comment I have read is Graeme Archer's demand for censorship, particularly as it is of a subject clearly close to his heart.

The message is that homosexuals want to censor any criticism of themselves. This does not surprise me.

It seems that the talk of the Nasty Party is all about this issue and either coming from people like Mr Archer or people who sympathise with him.

So it seems that we were the Nasty Party at the last election but have suddenly changed since. As one who apparently is still a member of the Nasty Party Id be interested to see evidence of this extraordinary alleged change.

Thank you Graeme: If Mark McCartney repeats his remarks I will delete them. I can understand the offence he is causing and i am sorry.

Graeme @ 08:17 - "unfounded and repeated attempts to equate homosexuality with paedophilia"

Unfortunately some homosexuals have helped to spread this misconception by arguing that there is no need for the law to prescribe an age of consent.

Ed, thanks for that, but two questions,

1. Why leave the comments up as they are now and

2. That's hardly the only grossly offensive thing said, how about this from John on a "typical gay" household

" also noted a row of VHS which from the idiotic obscene titles on the spines of the cases must have been gay porn. I wasnt sorry when this man left the area some time afterwards.

If that's a typical gay household is that the kind of thing you want left around for young children to see?"

Surely putting on comment moderation does not attack free speech, it's used on the Mayoral and S&C blogs already, and by definition anything you think is acceptable can get through, but this "all gays are promiscuous and will expose children to that/abuse children" - *especially* when it comes from non-Conservative ukip supporters - as Graeme says it gives the media a really false impression of the Conservative debate on the issue and makes the party look bad.

And Graeme and I are on opposite sides of the debate here.

Denis, you're right, such a call would be abominable, and if that was what we were discussing then I would be aligned with you!

Larry -- it's Dr Archer, if you're going to be hissy with me :-0).JOKE! Seriously: how gay people integrate into society is, obviously, a matter which is important to me -- well spotted! Innuendo which equates homosexuality with paedophilia is, however, just wrong, so the gay dimension to my own psychology is neither here nor there. Unless you think otherwise? Criticise homosexuality or its manifestation in people like myself as much as you like; my point is just that a site which is viewed as a billboard for Conservative Party members' thoughts ought to be careful about the impact that some messages have on the reputation of our party.

The display of ignorant abuse from "Malcolm" is all too typical. A man who resorts to insults during debate is clearly someone who cannot control his own emotions.Perhaps he needs to go on an anger management course.

Tory T are you calling me a liar when I detailed my experiences in the gay household?

I am calling you a slanderous bigot who has taken an example of inappropriate behaviour and suggested firstly, that it applies to all gay couples, and secondly, that this material left in the sight of adults would necessarily be left in the sight of children.

I wish you would go and post on ukip home. They need some comments.

Oh and Tory T appears to be calling me a UKIP supporter also. What this board really needs is removal of these idiotic nicknames which probably conceal one or two people marquerading as a small army of Cameron supporters.

So presumably you would call me a liar when I tell you that I have been a member of the Conservative Party for over 40 years, no doubt considerably longer than you.

Which party do you suppose middle class traditionally-minded people joined before UKIP was invented?

And whom do you presently support John? If I go back to the ukip threads I will find plenty of support for them, and attacks on the Conservatives, from you, won't I?

Now I've just read Tory T's last hysterical and abusive post. He may call himself a Tory but if anybody behaved like that on my ward committee they would be asked to resign, and expelled if they refused.

As I am now the Chairman I can guarantee that.

I do not make a habit of visiting gay households so I'm quite prepared to admit my experience is limited. However my fairly wide circle of friends whom I suppose I must now refer to as "straight" do not make a habit of leaving heterosexual pornography round their homes - not when I call anyway.

I have no intention of posting on ukip home, indeed I would not know where to find it.

Can you explain why you gave a single example of this behaviour, implied that it was a "typical gay household" and that children adopted by gays would routinely be exposed to gay pornography?

Depressing as this thread is (like all those so far on this subject), it is made almost worthwhile by the posts of John Irvine. His post re: his visit to the home of a pair of queers who left porn on the coffee table is priceless. I've copied it some non-political mates who refuse to believe it was not intended to be comedy.

Graeme, I'm not going to name a name, because it would be potentially libellous to do so and I don't have the time to check back to confirm that the name I have in mind is correct. However when the legal age of homosexual consent was under discussion about eight years ago I saw a prominent gay campaigner on television arguing that there should be no prescribed age of consent for either heterosexual or homosexual intercourse.

Yes Denis I know what you are referring to, I remember a Sunday supplement article covering the same subject. The reporter described the persons flat as having pictures on the wall which confirmed the views that you describe.

a pair of queers who left porn on the coffee table

Homophobic comment!!! Homophobic comment!!!

Ban trendy liberal Gareth for making an antigay hate statment.

This debate is about our approach to multiculturalism. The precedent that the Editor and others are setting by allowing group specific opt outs from laws is a dangerous one. Because some of you have a particular prejudice against gays or think that this is an area where the Roman Catholic church should be given leeway you are failing to see the damage this precedent will create. Once we allow one group to opt out, all other groups will start to demand opt outs. This is a slippery slope to sharia law. We must have one law that applies to all. If we are confident in passing a law it should apply to all. If we think it shouldn't apply to some people, it shouldn't apply to anyone.

I'm glad you find my posts amusing Gareth. Maybe you'd better have a word with your totally humourless colleagues Tory T and Malcolm.

If changetowin and one or two others simply believe in everybody being forced to obey the same law I assume they would have appled the same logic to gays when homosexuality was a criminal offence?

Does changetowin believe that Sikhs should be forced to wear motorcycle helmets like everybody else?

Do grow up 'Zorro'.

Hi John,

I take the simple liberal position that we should have one law in Britain and that it should apply to all. There should be no group exemptions. If there is a strong case for group exemptions then the law probably shouldn't exist. There are, after all, far to many laws governing every aspect of our behaviour. While the law exists, however, it must of course be obeyed. If it is not, for reasons of conscience for example, the law breaker must accept the appropriate punishment.

To apply this simple logic to your examples, John:

1. The laws against homosexuality were bad laws and we were right to repeal them. But while they existed they had to be obeyed or the lawbreakers had to face the punishment.

2. If we as a society come to a view that wearing a motorcycle helmet is a vital thing to legislate on then the law should apply to all. If we believe, as I do, that it is highly desirable for people to wear helmets but we shouldn't force people to then we should repeal the law. Trivial example, but very important ramifications if we have different laws for different groups.

Do grow up 'Zorro'.

Just having a shot at walking the walk and talking the talk, Graham.

After all, PC will soon be compulsory.

changetowin, there are many laws which include specific exemptions for good reasons. Exactly the same law applies to everybody in the country, but the law itself has been carefully drafted to allow for exceptions from certain of its own provisions. I see no problem with that, if there's a good reason for an exemption.

changetowin, there are many laws which include specific exemptions for good reasons.

Denis,

Would you mind giving a few examples? As far as I knew, the Sikh motorcycle helmet one is well known because it was so unprecedented.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker