THE Catholic Church in Scotland last night furiously accused ministers of creating a "thought crime" after Tony Blair refused to exempt Catholic adoption agencies from gay equality laws.


In a significant escalation of the war of words between Church and state, the Catholic hierarchy said the government's decision to force faith-based agencies to consider same-sex couples as prospective adoptive parents would have a knock-on effect on religious people in other professions.

The Prime Minister yesterday confirmed the government would not allow discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation from any organisation, particularly one in receipt of public funds. However, faith-based agencies have been given an "adjustment" period of 20 months as the laws will not come in until the end of 2008. Until then, they must refer same-sex couples to another adoption agency.

However, a spokesman for the Scottish Catholic Media Office insisted this would affect more than just the two Catholic adoption agencies in Scotland.

"This is UK-wide regulation that will impact on anyone who provides goods and services, from the priest who refuses to hire the parish hall to a same-sex couple, to the editor of a Catholic newspaper who refuses to carry a Gay Pride advert, or a printer who refuses to print those adverts - they will all be criminalised by this Draconian measure. This is as close as you can get to a thought crime," he said, in a reference to the George Orwell novel 1984.

"It isn't just Catholics - anyone whose faith means they do not believe there is a moral equivalence between single-sex couples and heterosexual couples will find themselves affected.

"There are also large numbers of people of no faith at all who happen to believe that there is no such moral equivalence who stand to be criminalised because of that belief."

The decision threatened to undermine Labour's bid to woo the Catholic vote ahead of the May election in Scotland. The Prime Minister himself gave credence to the sensitivity of the issue when he directly referred to Jack McConnell, the First Minister, who had been "making sure the Scottish perspective" was heard.

One Catholic source predicted that yesterday's decision could cost Labour votes at the May election. Two fringe Christian parties are standing at the Holyrood elections, with particular focus on Glasgow.

"You could well see significant numbers of people tactically switching to reflect Christian views," said the source.

The source also warned that the Scottish National Party can expect no credit for its recent attempts to woo Catholics: "All the main parties are broadly in the same position on this, so a lot of people will find that their opinions are not reflected by any of those parties."

But the First Minister said his priority all the way through had been to ensure children's lives could be improved. "For me, adoption is all about improving the lives of children. My priority is to find a way that will allow faith-based adoption agencies in Scotland to continue finding new parents for some of our most vulnerable children," Mr McConnell said.

"These are the points I made to the Prime Minister over the weekend. This is undoubtedly a difficult issue, but I think the Prime Minister's announcement is a step forward. Above all, I hope it enables faith-based agencies to continue the valuable work they do. We willkeep in close contact with Scottish adoption agencies as these regulations are introduced."

A source close to the First Minister played down the impact Westminster's decision would make on Labour in Scotland.

However, Stephen Pound, a Catholic Labour back-bencher who holds a London seat, said the adoption row had become a "massive issue" in the Scottish election.

But last night, Mr Blair said he believed ministers had found a "way through" that prevented discrimination and protected children's interests, which all "reasonable people" would be able to accept. "There is no place in our society for discrimination. That's why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt, like any other couple.

"And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public-funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination."

Meanwhile, David Cameron, the Conservative leader, became the latest figure to weigh in on the side of equal rights lobby. Risking the fury from right-wingers, he said it would be wrong to give the Catholic Church any exemption.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, also welcomed the move, saying there was "no place for discrimination in a liberal society".

Kelly puts job before faith as she backs PM's decision

RUTH Kelly, the devout Catholic Cabinet minister who most strongly argued for an exemption from the equality regulations, last night put her career before her faith by welcoming the Prime Minister's decision.

Ms Kelly, an associate of the strictly observant Opus Dei group within the Catholic Church, had made her strong objections public, leading even sympathetic MPs to wonder if she would be forced to leave the government if her view did not prevail.

Tony Blair initially sympathised with Ms Kelly, but angry reactions from ministers led by Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, forced him to overrule her.

Last night, Ms Kelly made clear she would accept the Prime Minister's ruling and keep her job as Communities Secretary.

"We have had the debate and heard a range of views - many of them expressed with passion and conviction. As a result we now have a workable solution," Ms Kelly said.

"Good government is about robust debate and finding solutions that meet our principles in a practical way. This is the right way forward."

She concluded: "Today's announcement is a breakthrough that should be welcomed by everyone."

But the Catholic hierarchy's fury at the decision is likely to prove a strain for Ms Kelly. In 2005, The Scotsman revealed that the minister was a full "supernumerary" member of Opus Dei, the controversial Catholic prelature made famous by Dan Brown's bestselling book The Da Vinci Code.

Despite her decision, Ms Kelly's long-term political future is far from assured. Her Bolton constituency has been redrawn, making it far from safe for Labour at the next general election.

Source
---------------------------------------------------------
I still can't believe it. In this day and age the Church is asking for permission to hate and discriminate. They let all the other common sinners of this world be allowed to adopt but not one group of sinners? It's barking mad.

Funny how the Gay community only goes after Christians. Why? Because it's a nice a safe target. what with turn the other cheek and all that.
Why don't they protest against Islam? Oh no they’re too afraid. Or what about the 'homophobic world' of black hiphop culture? Oh no they’re too afraid to be accused of being racist.

The British Liberal is an annoying little facist- The British liberal will fight for your right to er agree with them. If not, then they'll phone the police.

^
It's the Church, Jews and Islam all going against this. It's more so that the Church is a bigger image there then the others are.

So your arguement is to defend the hatred and discrimination is that the Church is being picked on?

When the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Williams) supported the Catholic Church in the gay adoption row last week, many were surprised.
Now it has emerged that Dr Williams may have been influenced by his close involvement with a remarkable couple who rescued a boy brutalised by a notorious social services paedophile ring.

Liam Lucas was just one of the children abused by predatory paedophiles who took advantage of far-Left Islington Council's childcare policies in the Eighties and Nineties, when it pro-actively recruited gay social workers.

Paedophiles exploited its well-intentioned commitment to equal opportunities and soon most of Islington's 12 children's homes had child molesters on the staff who cynically pretended to be ordinary homosexuals. Numerous children and other staff made allegations of abuse, but were branded homophobes and ignored.

Evening Standard

wow... I thought this was Britain... not the vatican. Besides... why would a gay couple even go to a catholic adoption agency?

but still, if anyone - even religions - want to live in a democracy, then they should abide by all the laws set by the government - which should keep all religious faith/influence away from the government anyway - and if they're truly angry at something ( such as catholic adoption agencies having to adopt children to gay couples) then there isn't anything making them stay here.

Good. It's a shame that the Church can't feel the same way.

I do see you're back up on your game of linking paedophile and homosexuality. Lots of straight couples exploit the adoption process that results up in the child being harmed. But hey, let's just ignore that massive fact and let's just gay bash!

Let just ignore all aspects of 'gayness' and homosexuality- even though it's all poorly defined and confused and er just give em kids to play with.
All the arguements in support of homosexuality could be and are being used to support pedophilia. Deal with it.

So what about straight pedophilia? Pedophilia isn't just limited to homosexuals. So what's your arguement then? You just want to be a bigot?

I imagine God is saying "leave me out of this" Sheesh, what is the problem with letting a gay couple adopt a child. I truly dont see the problem. There isn't any study out proving that a child growing up in a gay household will turn them into murderer's, rapists, arsonists, or any other menace to society.

Homosexuality is a sexual preference. Heterosexuality is not- it also has a purpose- procreation.
Homosexuality and pedophilia as 'sexual preferences' cannot pro-create.
Now, people don't really care what two consenting adults do together but when it starts to affect kids...such as gay adoption- that’s when it starts to gets up peoples noses. And of course the sexuality of the parents can and will affect the kids-only a naive idiot would think otherwise.
Why? because of the good old Nature vs Nurture-
The gay community still hasn't sorted that one out.. and nor will they even look:huh: Recently there was a scientific study in australia but the gay community protested- and it was stopped- the old anyone who dares question us is a 'homophobic bigot' reared its ugly head.
I wonder why they stopped it? Afraid what it might reveal?

A straight person who is a pedophilia can't pro-create either with a child. I guess now using your logic straight people shouldn't adopt!



So you're saying their gayness will rub off on the child? I guess if being gay is a contagious disease, people could call into work for being gay?

I bet it's a good thing to give a child a loving, caring enviroment regardless if their guardians are straight or gay.

First off, homosexuality isn't a sexual preference. And since when can't pedophilia create babies? Are you serious? I don't think you have a firm grasp on what pedophilia is.

That was my point


That doesn't make any sense. Using your logic--pedophiles should be able to adopt! why? "because not all pedophiles abuse kids. so, why shouldn't they be allowed to adopt- their sexuality won't affect the child- why are you a pedophobic?"
Just a typical example of the arguments you've been using.



Maybe.. maybe not. I’m sure it will affect the kid if 'gayness' is a psychological disorder. Do you know what gayness is? Is it genetic? Chemical imbalance what?



Do have any limits whatsoever when it comes to gay adoption? I mean, should two transsexuals be able to adopt? or three er I take it would have to three bisexuals; should they be able to adopt? Or are you numberphobic?

I know a girl who was adopted by gay parents (they were both men) and she's not gay. Or a serial killer or anything like that. She's a really nice girl who just has two dads and accepts their lifestyle because they both love her very much. Its not about the sexual orientation of the parents, its about how much love and nuturing they can give to a child. I can understand how a religious adoption agency could be angry because they don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but if they're funded by the government, its really out of their hands isn't it?

Ok, what is it?



Er it's pretty obvious when, without being too graphic are you serious?



I take that as a compliment, but what is pedophilia then?

heterosexual is a preference too, actaully its been conditoned for most of us, hetero is religons pick actaually its not unusual for some to be bi-sexual naturally it was not an issue till christainity deemed it one.....

You gotta be kidding me? The CHURCH is going to lecture the world about handing small children over to perverted adults? I mean that's just too damn easy. Priests must be high fiving each other in the hall way.

That said. Its their church and their money and the political leaders should keep their noses out of it. End of story. The church is the church.


Also according to your argument a woman who hits menopause would be considered non procreating and shouldn't be allowed to have sex any more.

In addition parents that want to adopt are typically people who can't procreate on their own so you're argument is pointless.

So then what were you trying to go for? If sterile straight people want to adopt, they shouldn't be allowed to?



That's just completely stupid. Homosexuals and pedophiles are not one and the same.

Your arguement is of a bigot.

I'm sure it won't hurt them.



Depends on the situation. You think couples just go down to an adoption agency and just pick a child up? Of course not, they go through a background test and more to check.

Do people that change their sex count?

That's beside the point. The church is fairly minor in this debate- it's a side issue- the real debate is this new law bill coming into the UK, which makes it a criminal offence to not only 'discriminate' but also to even just 'voice an objection' to Homosexual, transsexual and bisexual's right's to adopt will be a criminal offence. Hence the 'thought police' line in the orginal article. The pro Gay arguments are pretty damn weak- and yet going to make it a criminal offence to question them. Hey! maybe that's why they're doing it.



That not my argument at all. Sex is for pleasure and procreation.. No? In fact the reason it is pleasurable is to ensure we procreate- nature's way.
My argument is what is homosexuality? seems rather confused doesn't it? No one from the Gay side seems to want to answer the question or define it- I say it's a sexual preference. Some people we call 'gay' seem to like it, they're certainly not doing it to procreate.
But when Gays adopt, do we understand the affects their gayness will have on the kids? Seems no one knows or cares.. The prevailing attitude seems to be, er Let’s just perform a social experiment and er see what happens, who cares about the kids.
Imo I'd say the gayness will affect the kids because parents do have a big influence on their children. Imagine if the kid's naturally heterosexual but is influenced to becoming gay. I’m sure the Gay activists will consider this ‘cool’ and ‘right’.



Well again that wasn't my argument but seeing as we’re on the subject- do you have ‘any’ limitations in adoption? Should transvestites be able to adopt? Or what about two straight guys who are just great mates?

He's like a robot- never said they were but there noticeable similarities. Apparently, pedophiles have even formed their own civil rights movement and are labeling anyone who question them as pedophobes. Sound familiar.
Ridiculous you might say? I'd say so but..many people said the same about the gay rights movement when it first started.

Interestingly when the gay rights activists protested to lower the age of consent to 16 instead of 18, I didn't notice many 16yr olds on the march- just 40 something men-- in leather trousers, with moustaches..



Oh thank god for that... I was a little bit concerned.



I think homosexuality is becoming synonymous with confusion. Oh this alone I don't think they should adopt... not good giving a child to someone who's confused.

Dictionary definition.

ho·mo·sex·u·al (hō'mə-sěk'shōō-əl, -mō-) Pronunciation Key
adj. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.


n. Usage Problem
A homosexual person; a gay man or a lesbian.

Usage Note: Many people now avoid using homosexual because of the emphasis this term places on sexuality. Indeed, the words gay and lesbian, which stress cultural and social matters over sex, are frequently better choices. Homosexual is most objectionable when used as a noun; here gay man and gay woman or lesbian and their plural forms are called for. It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally, as in a homosexual relationship, although gay, lesbian, or same-sex are also available for adjectival use. See Usage Note at gay.


Now, tell me that doesn't sound confused.

So they're not the same at all. Drop it then. Consenting adults are just that... Adults.



How many straight people break off their marriage or relationships because they find out their homosexual? I guess now we can't be really sure if straight people are really straight... they might be in the closet.

Transvestites are able to adopt. You can tell that you are a bigot because you don't even know what you are talking about.

Transvestism is literally the practice of cross-dressing, wearing the clothing of the opposite sex, and transvestite literally refers to a person who cross-dresses. However, the word has often had additional connotations.

from wiki.

Two straight guys no problemo. I have no limits on anyone adopting except perhaps Kevin Federline but that's because he's a horrible parent.

Pedophilia is an adult having sexual activities with children 13 and under. Now, do you really believe that a 13 year old girl can't get pregnant? In fact, even younger girls can get pregnant. Maybe you should do a little research on how the reproductive system works.

We don't seem confused at all. You are the one who is confused.

Gay

men like men

women like women.

That's it bub. Same sex preference. So a homosexual is no more or less likely to want to hump their ten year old than their father wants to bang their ten year old daughter. Oh wait, that happens ALL THE TIME in the heterosexual community.

On top of that who wants to be gay???? Seems to me that you are bothered at the idea of what it means to be gay more than a child would be. Its called homophobia. An irrational fear of homosexual contagion.

*EDIT*

I can agree with truethat here.

Not the same but similar- see, drop the 'consenting adults' and 'against the law' what are the difference? Remember homosexuality used to be against the law.
'Consenting adults' sexuality shouldn't affect children; if the adults have a choice in the matter. But, with 'Gay adoption' and the sexuality can affect the children. I haven't really heard a good argument against it not affecting the children; apart from 'so what if it does' or 'there's nothing wrong with it'




Good question, God knows. How does one know whether they're gay? We don’t even really know what it is.
All I hear gay men saying is "I always knew I was gay, just the thought of sleeping with a women makes me sick I know I would just hate it" or a lesbian saying "I hate the idea of sleeping with a man, I don't like their bodies at all yuck"

And they talk about 'hate crimes.'

As for bisexuals, well, by their very nature they’re just confused and rarely stay in long term relationships anyway. Usually they’re just 'experimenting'.
Btw I know some gay men who hate bisexuals because they don't consider them to be ‘pure’ whatever that means?
What? You think by being a homosexual they can't be a bigot? Is homosexuality like a black thing? Where someone says "I can't be racist because I'm black" I noticed alot of people here use that type of reasoning.

And now it isn't, so it's fine by the justice system.

You're always worried about the childre... So would that also mean since studies say single parents can't raise a child as best as a couple have their child(ren) taken away and given to a couple? What about poor parents who can't afford better things for their children... Should those children be taken away to be given to richer couples? How about couples who smoke and drink... That's not a healthy enviroment, so should the children be taken away?



So you didn't answer the question. What if they're a closet homosexual. That's a risk to every single straight couple out there.

Well, I've been told it's not a preference. So you're not talking for the collective 'we' are you?
So what about transsexuals, bisexuals etc. Are they all subjective terms as well?



Very true.. but it wasn't even my argument Oh you just thought I was making that argument because others have?



Why what's wrong with being gay? I’m sure some people actually do want to be gay; especially if it is a psychological choice. Or is it natural. Do you know?



Yes the word is seems but I'm not.. where you do not seem to care whether it does or doesn't affect the child. Fair point, if that is your apathetic viewpoint. I can relate to this.



Yes.. it's a relatively new word- it's great for avoiding discussion. He's a bigot, He's a homophobe He's a commie! kill him! send him to the Gas chambers.

*EDIT*

As an ideal I think we should worry about the children. None of you examples particularly make sense- well only as straw man.
Btw Poor single people cannot adopt but anyway, let's get to the point of the argument- this topic- the new legislation.

This question is relevant.
Do you think parents who teach their children 'homophobic' attitudes should be locked up? (up to seven years)
Because under this new Bill, they can be.

If the answer is yes then you're just as much a bigot/fascist as those you claim to oppose.
If the answer is No then you cannot support this Bill.

Yes I did answer the question.. it was God knows.. (as in nobody know) how many closet homosexuals are out there. It's an impossible question to answer.

No, because you don't so answer those questions.



I don't think so. I think that gay adoption is fine though and that is what the Church is mad at. Hence this thread on their reaction.



Ahh, so then they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because they might be a closet homosexual.

Where does the bill say that parents that teach their children homophobic attitudes can be locked up? And by your argument parents that teach their children racist attitudes are not bigots?

big·ot (bĭg'ət) pronunciation
n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

[French, from Old French.]

WORD HISTORY Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”


http://www.answers.com/topic/bigot

Is it? whose definition is this? Doesn't it depent where you live?
Anyway assuming this is correct- So, only three year difference between being a legal citizen or a illegal citizen. What until the pedophile civil rights movement here's about this! They'll start to label anyone who question them as being bigots or worse still..pedophobic. Oh no.



Ok I will do... usually takes a male and female doesn't it?

Where does the bill say that parents that teach their children homophobic attitudes will be locked up?

Here's the current law which has recently been changed and under the new bill it will be reinforced.

2. Homophobic Incident Definition
2.1. Any incident which appears to either the victim, investigating officer or any other person to be motivated by homophobia, that is animosity towards members of the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender community.
2.2. This broad definition is to ensure, as far as possible, that police records of homophobic incidents are complete. The purely subjective nature of the definition reflects recognition that a victim's perception of the offence is a significant factor.

Now the current 'battle' is between religious groups and gay rights. Both groups now have rights above and beyond other citizens who are not in either group in the UK.
Gay rights claim religion is homophobic which is a crime- religion claims it's being persecuted- which is also a crime. Both maximum sentence seven years. That's without Physical contact by the way.
So, if say you're raising your kids to be Islamic- if a gay person takes offence to this- it'll be considered a crime (remember the crime is subjective). The police have to respond-

. Dealing With Offenders

4.1. Excellence in investigation is the basis of any subsequent action and a prosecution should be sought where possible. Where cases of this nature are referred for prosecution, it is essential that this factor be drawn to the attention of the CPS. It is imperative that the victim is kept fully up to date with any decisions made in relation to their case. In cases where it is not appropriate to pursue criminal proceedings, the views of the victim should be sought and, if appropriate, other agencies considered for support and advice.

5. Service Delivery
5.1. Although the actual offence may be of a minor nature, the homophobic factor will make the effects on the victim far more substantial.
5.2. It is essential, therefore, that officers comply with the SOP on homophobic incidents and adopt a positive approach to ensure the victim is fully aware of all developments and the reasons for them as they occur, eg, if CPS decide to discontinue.

In the Uk we've already seen incidents which you would've thought trivial become police matters. You'd hope common sense would prevail but alas it's usually the first to go.

Where does it say that parents that raise their kids to be homophobic will be locked up???

The questions weren’t relevant nor were they a legal matter which is the point of this new Bill.
You deliberately, once again, chose the article of the thread to paint the picture as if it’s ‘The horrible Christian church picking on us gays again’
Homophobia verse Christian intolerance?

It’s not the issue or the point of the Bill. This bill is about law…and in my view ridiculous ideologies.
What about Homophobia verse anti-sematic. Homophobia verse Islamophobia? **** it let's make it Law- seven year sentences all round. Yeah but 'Hate' is an emotion. The current law more than protects gays but it wasn't enough was it?
Hate verse hate? Personally, I think you’re all mad.

I heard you the first time. automated robotic response- I just told you.

geezs

Well it doesn't say that.

Who said it does?

I said-



Why? Because-

Homophobic crime-

2.2. This broad definition is to ensure, as far as possible, that police records of homophobic incidents are complete. The purely subjective nature of the definition reflects recognition that a victim's perception of the offence is a significant factor (if a victim states that an incident is motivated by homophobic behaviour then it must be treated as such).
maximum sentence- seven years.

Is that clear? You can look up 'purely subjective' in the dictionary if you want to.

Even though it is a religious organization being affected by this law, that they are using government funding to run their agencies doesn't really give them much of an option to complain. If they were self-funded, perhaps they could impose their own laws, but the government has the right to force them to accept their laws, even if it disagrees with their own. if they don't like it, they shouldn't have accepted the government money.

The problem, I think, will come when (or if) this law affects completely church-run agencies or offices. Could a priest who refuses to preside over a gay marriage be jailed for inciting a "homophobic incident", for example? Or to use the example in the original article, would an editor of a church-run magazine be jailed for inciting a "homophobic incident" if they refuse to run an add promoting a gay event?

That's my worry about this law. The Church was happy enough to accept government money, they should accept government rulings also.

Regards, PA

Any entity, whether an individual or organisation, wishing to take part in a society with laws should be expected to abide by those laws - regardless of the entities personal (or organisational) morals/ethics. If the entity does not want to abide by those laws then they should remove themselves from that society.

I don't understand how people can still have such a fear of homosexuality.

The FACT is that homosexuals should have the exact same rights as any one else. To not allow them these rights is to consider them lesser people. By casting them as second class citizens the agency (Be it a church or an individual) is practicing bigotry.

I have a brother who is homosexual and I can state right now that he is not and would never be a pedophile. No more then I or my other non-gay brother is.

The fact is that pedophilia and Homosexuality have no connection except in the minds of extremist christians.

Congratulations to the UK for doing their bit to overthrow the foolish preconceptions that for centuries have made it all but impossible for Homosexuals to live a normal life.

To not allow Homosexuals to adopt out of fear that they may influence the childs sexual preference seems to me as ludicrous as not allowing black people or members of any other minority to adopt.

I know many homosexual couples who I feel would be fine parents and also know many heterosexual couples who are terrible parents.

What do gay people have to do with pedophiles?

Sure they are very relevant. You're going off what is best for children so answer the questions.

Ahh, so now it's my fault the Christian church is being a bigot and hating? I point that fact out and it's wrong for me to? Insane.

I've already said I don't agree with that part of the bill but I do agree with allowing homosexuals to adopt. That's what the church is all about in their outcry. They don't want homosexuals to adopt. Why should they be allowed to discriminate? What's next? They want to also now apply their bible standards on women to now?

I think its more then that Kratos. Homosexuals being allowed to adopt is merely the current hoohah. What the church truly fears is Homosexuals being accepted as equals. That is what they are doing thier upmost to prevent.

The adoption thing is merely a small part of the rproblem

Ok yep, the best for the children. To answer your questions- All adoption agencies make such choices all time, turning down prospective adoptive parents on the grounds they are too old, too unhealthy, heavy smokers- or even the wrong skin colour
(White parents are discouraged from adopting black children)
Other agencies will not place children with cohabiting or adulterous couples because of the stability in the household.
So the argument about discrimination is patently bogus.
The real agenda is something very different. It is not the merits or otherwise of gay adoption. It is the fact Christian and other faiths can no longer chose to place children only with adoptive mother and father, which they think will best serve the interests of the child.
They are being told that the Government only disapproves of such a view but they will be criminalized if they refuse to place children with same-sex couples and yet the Government discriminates all the time in pursuit of its highly ideological agenda to privileged self designed victim groups.



In your mind it's bigoted and hating but it's not a cold hard fact- only subjective opinion.
I’m not a Christian but I can see that the Christians are viewed as such an easy target. Sure, they think homosexuality is a sin but ‘so what’ because this is just tantamount to just disapproval. Christians can’t and shouldn’t beat up gays because they consider this to be bigger sin. Do Gay activists walk into a mosque shouting ‘I’m Gay and proud!’ or do they go to a black hiphop club and stand on the stage shouting “We’re Queer and here to stay!” No, of course they don’t but good old Christians turn the other cheek- where the example I used- do not.

The real agenda is the new Laws are trying to criminalize anyone who ‘disapproves’ of homosexuality and any aspect of Gay culture lifestyle. Even though it’s patiently clear no one really knows what they are; it’s almost completely subjective but the law allows this group to decide for itself when a crime have been committed and the police have to act.

Just as a point of interest, but for a year, I went to university with a person who was Greek Orthodox, by religion. I was a little interested in his belief because he was Indian. He looked Indian, and his name was Indian. It wasn't until I found out he was adopted by Greek parents that it all started to make sense. I'm not sure whether you can use this to further discussion in any way, but it is a note to consider that the child's religious or ethnic background need not be a barrier to adoption.

My point entirely, by making what constitutes as a 'homophobic incident' to be 'purely subjective' the list of potential crimes is almost limitless.
The worrying aspect is, this is Law and not just guidelines so the police have to follow up on every occasion

Check this out from Bedfordshire police website-

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Communities (LGBT)

Bedfordshire Police is commited to tackling all hate crimes in a robust but sensitive manner. Community Investigators are in place across the County to speak to. All Bedfordshire Police Officers have had hate crime training and can be expected to deal with any reported crime in an appropriate and sensitive mannner. Specially trained First Contact officers are being introduced to support victims throughout the Criminal Justice system.

But we need you!

We need you to report all incidents of hate crime so that we may provide the best service to our members. No matter how trivial you think the incident is, if you perceive the motivation behind the incident to be your sexual orientation, please tell us about it.