BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Do you support ruling on Catholic adoption?

11:40 UK time, Wednesday, 17 March 2010

Catholic Care has won a High Court battle over laws forcing it to consider gay couples as parents. Has the right decision been made?

The Catholic Church had previously lost a battle against the introduction of the Sexual Orientations Regulations, under the Equality Act, which forced agencies to consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents.

Leeds-based Catholic Care said the law went against the Church's teachings on marriage and family life and that it would be forced to give up its work finding homes for children if it had to comply with the legislation.

Should exceptions be made for religious organisations when it comes to matters such as adoption? Are you a gay person who has adopted children? Do you work for a social care organisation?

This debate has now been closed. Thank you for your comments.


Page 1 of 5

  • Comment number 1.

    No charity should be forced to place children with gay parents. It should be a matter of choice. Unfortunately the Charities Commission has become rather political lately.

  • Comment number 2.

    So prejudice is OK if you are religious?

  • Comment number 3.

    The question that should be asked is why partisan, private organisations (such as the Catholic church) are being given responsibilities that surely lie with state, as with child adoption? Is the Catholic church receiving funds for this service, even just "expenses"?

    You cannot expect to outsource something like this to such restrictive organisation and not expect doctrinal strings to be attached. In the modern world these doctrinal strings (anti-homosexuality) are no longer acceptable, therefore the Catholic influence in this arena should be ended.

  • Comment number 4.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 5.

    Religious organisations should not be involved in adoptions in the first place. Adoptions should put the interests of the child first not the interests of the adoption agency

  • Comment number 6.

    I don't think gays should be dissalowed to adopt on the basis they are gay but only on the chance a child would feel uncomfortable with homosexual aprents.

    If they do not take the childs wishes into account it is just discrimination.

  • Comment number 7.

    I guess it's OK as long as other agencies could refuse adoptive parents because they are Catholic on the grounds that they would brainwash their children with mumbo jumbo.

  • Comment number 8.

    Its about time a Judge is on the right side.

  • Comment number 9.

    This is a brilliant out come!!

  • Comment number 10.

    I'm sure plenty of anti-religion people will jump all over this. I may not agree with the Catholic church on this one, but I can respect them for sticking by their convictions. In a society where potentially insulting anyone seems to be a prisonable offence, I commend the church for not changing their own beliefs just to keep everyone happy.

  • Comment number 11.

    We'd all be up in arms if this was "Muslims" - and rightly so! The law is the law and the church should not be above it. Having said that I don't think that gay couples should be allowed to adopt for the sake of the children, who are bound to get bullied as a result.

  • Comment number 12.

    Religious organisations should follow the law of the land, like everybody else. These groups get more than enough concessions as it is; can I claim exemption from paying tax by declaring myself as a charity, for example?

  • Comment number 13.

    How on earth can the church get away with this when the BNP who "teach" racism cannot?

  • Comment number 14.

    This ruling allows minority bigotted views to have preference over basic human rights. It is morally wrong and religion based belief systems should never supercede civil law.

  • Comment number 15.

    It's interesting isn't it. People think that if you're a member of the BNP and therefore racist, you should be banned from certain professions. Yet it's ok to have unacceptable sexist/racist/homophobic ideas if you can say it's religious, rather than political. Hmmm. Would the result have been the same if an agency said they wouldn't deal with black couples? Or disabled couples? There should not be a get-out for religious groups - I really can't see why their views are more acceptable than those of non-religious people.

    That said, there are plenty of other agencies who can provide the service to gay couples, and why, as a gay couple, would you want to use an agency that disapproves of you? Why make an issue of it when there's no need.

    This situation shouldn't have arisen in the first place.

  • Comment number 16.

    Given the events of the past few years I'm surprised this Catholic charity has decided it knows best about child welfare.

    There are far worse things that can happen to a child than being brought up by gay parents.

    Being abused by someone in a position of authority who is then protected by the global organisation he works for, for example.

  • Comment number 17.

    We must separate church and state. Although everyone is entitled to their own opinions, the law should apply to all in the UK without exceptions being made to Catholics, Muslims, Jews or others. The law is made by a democratically elected government and although there are many laws I personally disagree with, I am obliged to comply. Where would the exceptions end?

  • Comment number 18.

    "How can you tell if a same sex couple, are not going to be good parents?

  • Comment number 19.

    I disagree with the vast majority of the teaching of the Catholic church, but I full agree on this one.

  • Comment number 20.

    There is no need for an exception to be made. Any responsible adoption agency, religious or not, will assess all applicants as regard to their suitability as adoptive parents. If the agency feels that any aspect of the candidates' lifestyle or circumstances render them unsuitable, no adoption will proceed.

    Under anti-discrimination laws, it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of skin colour - yet I, as a 'white' woman, would find it virtually impossible to adopt a child of any other skin colour. Instead of worrying about gay couples - who generally would have more sense than to approach an agency which they knew did not approve of their lifestyle - why is no-one concerned about discrimination in adoption based on the colour of hide?

  • Comment number 21.

    Why does believing in a particular brand of sky fairy give you the right to be homophobic?

    Not only does this discriminate against gay people, it also discriminates against atheist homophobic bigots. Atheist homophobic bigots will find themselves on the wrong side of the law, but if they become Catholic, then they get away with it.

    Doesn't seem right to me.

  • Comment number 22.

    Surely, a tolerant society can accommodate a wide variety of moral and religious viewpoints. There are many agencies offering children for adoption; some may welcome gay couples and single people as potential parents and some, because of deeply-held religious conviction, may not.
    It is the idea of forcing a charitable organisation to accept an ideology, utterly alien to its basic beliefs and principles, that is so offensive.

  • Comment number 23.

    Another backdown to religious fanatics this proves to me most of our judges are living in the dark ages. It should not be about if a couple are gay or not it should be about are they going to be good parents.

  • Comment number 24.

    No. A religious organisation should have to follow the law just like everyone else. We can't allow religion to trump the law, yet this happens time and time again.

    The statement by this charity in Leeds, "we'll be forced give up our work finding homes for children if we have to comply with the legislation," is DISGUSTING.
    No wonder so many people have no faith anymore. Who would want to be part of such a narrow-minded organisation?

    And the ridiculous irony is that this organisation is riddled with scandals about gay clergy!

    Adoption is about finding an appropriate, loving home for a child - NOT about forcing religious views on people.

    It's discrimination. There's no other word for it.

  • Comment number 25.

    " How can a child get the `normal` upbringing of a family environment when they are in a homosexual household. As quoted in the bible homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord."

    This is about the real world not the bible . I would rather a child be brought up by loving parents gay or not than some bible quoting fanatic.

  • Comment number 26.

    Given that the views of the Church on homosexuality are not exactly a secret, I can only assume that the type of gay couple who would apply to a Catholic agency to adopt would be the type with a 'point to make'. So would they really be trying to adopt for the right reasons? And I await with bated breath for the day when a gay couple tries to adopt a Moslem kid - or is that not a point that they would also wish to make? Bottom line - stop using adoptions to score poitns against religion(s)!

  • Comment number 27.

    D Johnson #4 says:-

    "As quoted in the bible homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Even non-believers know this to be true".

    I do not think that non believers would care about the opinions of 'The Lord'. You may not agree with homosexuality but it is not considered an 'abomination' in the eyes of the majority of the people in this country.

  • Comment number 28.

    If God meant homosexuals to have children they would be able to reproduce naturally. The child has no voice in this, if it did would it chose the gay couple?

  • Comment number 29.

    At last, a common sense decision on this issue. I'm not religious, but have to agree with the Church's stance on this. Adopting children with same sex couples is just wrong. It is this sort of loony liberal doctrine that is destroying family life. It was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve after all! How can it be 'normal' to bring children up without male and female parents? It is not and the sooner the authorities stop legislating to help every single minority get whatever they want the better.

  • Comment number 30.

    #4, D Johnson:

    "As quoted in the bible homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord."

    That is an extremely weak attempt to cover up the fact that the Catholic Church's dislike of gay people is pure homophobic bigotry.

    I'm sure you are aware of all the many other things that are an "abomination in the eyes of the Lord" (mostly as described in Leviticus). If the Catholic Church is really driven by what is considered an "abomination" in the Bible and not by bigotry, perhaps you could explain why they are happy to allow couples who eat shellfish to adopt?

  • Comment number 31.

    I was never in a position to have to consider having a child of mine adopted, but I never had the smallest maternal instinct and always thought that if I did become pregnant, I would give the infant up for adoption. The one thing that might have stopped me, pushed me to terminate the child, would have been the thought of any child being put through a hellish upbringing to satisfy some politically correct dogma. I've worked with kids who have been adpoted; it is never an easy life for them. The very least they should get is normality.

  • Comment number 32.

    To Bunglebear, why should adoption be the responsiblility of the state? It already has far too much power and is invasive in our lives. If he thinks the Catholic Church has "doctrinal strings", what does he think the state has, with all its raft of powers?

  • Comment number 33.

    ALL instituions should comply with the LAW regardless.

    What next? I refuse to pay my taxes on the grounds that it is my deeply held belief that this government doesn't deserve them and will only squander them?

    This is not about religion, this is not about freedom of choice or expression, this is about Obeying the Law of the land!

    This is clearly the wrong decision and it needs stating publicly that religious belief does not exempt anyone from the Law!

  • Comment number 34.

    As the Pope pointed not everyone can have the right to do anything. Why should one persons right to be gay be more important than someone else's right to be Catholic, or visa versa. They can't both have the right to force others to fit in with their life style. I'm neither gay nor catholic and not trying to take sides here. But what we have is a fundamental clash of "rights". The whole subject has just got silly, a little more tolerance would make the world a much happier place.

  • Comment number 35.

    How can prejudice be right just because it's religious? Whether or not a person is gay or straight does not affect their ability to be a parent. Their suitability as a parent should be the only factor in any decision involving adoption etc.

  • Comment number 36.

    RC hierachy will be pleased, the PC orientation brigade will be livid! Both I find to be quite hypocritical, just look at the ongoing RC revelations for some of its employees, or some of the disasters from the PC brigade whom have placed children with their group of choice! I thought it was always meant to be in the best interests of the child!

  • Comment number 37.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 38.

    One wonders whether a child would be better off being brought up by a homosexual couple or by Catholic priests??

  • Comment number 39.

    I'm very much against this happening, and more furious at the charity commission in allowing this as well. Children should not be brought up by same sex couples, They should be brought up in the proper way with Male and Female up bringing. we live in a confusing world as it is, and we should not confuse our children anymore. It should be illegal for same sex couples to adopt!

    In addtion why is the catholic church doing this, you hear so much about them abusing children, so how will this raise the profile of the catholic church? its all wrong

  • Comment number 40.

    I am appalled at this ruling, practically open-mouthed.

    This country has just confirmed that actually, it really IS okay to discriminate against someone on the grounds of sexual orientation after all, for all its protestations to the contrary.

    If we substituted the word "black" for "gay", the idea of an adoption agency behaving in this way would suddenly become appalling. Why isn't their prejudice appalling enough already?

  • Comment number 41.

    With the amount of sexual abuse cases against the church do they have any right to say whats going on in the real world.
    All faiths should stick to would they were given tax exemption for. They should stay away from politics juts like they did in the second world war...

  • Comment number 42.

    This decision is perverse and I hope that it will be appealed.

    Surely it must be the duty of any adoption agency to find the best parents that it can for every child that it deals with. This cannot be done if a particular class of parents is automatically ruled out, regardless of their suitability as individuals.

  • Comment number 43.

    #28, One in a million:

    "If God meant homosexuals to have children they would be able to reproduce naturally."

    You haven't really thought that one through, have you? You could equally argue that if God meant infertile couples to have children, they would be able to reproduce naturally.

    So by the same argument, infertile couples should not be allowed to adopt. That, however, might put a bit of a spanner in the works of the whole adoption system, mightn't it?

  • Comment number 44.

    Exception should be made for religious organisations when it comes to matters of adoption. The Church in Gt. Britain has been the custodian of healthy high moral biblical standards over the last 2,000 years which has made us influential and enviable worldwide. It put the Great into Great Britain! The State has no right to interfere with Church doctrine and beliefs. The rights of Freedom of Speech over state control needs to be preserved else we shall become no more than a dictatorship.

  • Comment number 45.

    The question that should be asked is why partisan, private organisations (such as the Catholic church) are being given responsibilities that surely lie with state, as with child adoption?


    It is only in recent history that "The State" has stepped in to care for orphans & unwanted children. Before that, the state did little or nothing for the poor & the marginalised. Prior to that, it was the church & other private organisations who provided help & care for such people. The Catholic church has just contined the work it has always done.

    Most other religions, Christian or otherwise, share the Catholic church's views on homosexual activity, yet the Catholic church is the only one to publicise its opposition to legislation that go against its core beliefs.

    I would like to know why its views in this matter are not openly supported by the leaders & followers of those other religions. Are they keeping quiet so that they do not invite trouble or do they simply not provide help & care for the poor and marginalised, so such legislation is immaterial to them?

  • Comment number 46.

    It'as astounding how many people on here make such sweeping comments about a 'normal' upbringing. If you ever considered to look beyond your 'pre-judgements' you'd see that facts show us that stable same-sex couples provide just as well-rounded and socially adjusted children as heterosexual ones. Shame that you clearly are clearly so stuck in your opinions that you can't (won't?) see reality.

    As to the Catholic religious element; I'd be interested whether they also refuse to place children in non-Catholic homes (I suspect not). Because if they do then they are simply being hypocritical (I suspect so).

    And to the person who says it's an abomination. I'd suggest you read the context of that Levitical passage, but I suspect you wouldn't be open minded enough.

  • Comment number 47.

    The only real solution for this is for organisations such as schools, adoption agencies, health care providers etc. to be secular. Religion should be confined to private matters of worship and should not impinge on professional services. You can almost never reconcile the two, and conflict is inevitable. Nobody should be prevented from following a religious path, but they must follow the law of the land where conflict is present. And if they have to do this, then they can't be wholly true to their religion. If we are bending the law to suit Catholics, who seem to be holding their area to ransom, then why not for Protestants, Muslims, or Jehova's Witnesses? It's not a path that we should be starting down.

  • Comment number 48.

    "This ruling allows minority bigotted views to have preference over basic human rights. It is morally wrong and religion based belief systems should never supercede civil law."

    It's morally wrong that gay couples are allowed to adopt children. There are plenty of heterosexual couples that would love to adopt a child.

    This world is losing the plot, radipdly!

  • Comment number 49.

    11. At 12:08pm on 17 Mar 2010, gmangnall wrote:
    We'd all be up in arms if this was "Muslims" - and rightly so! The law is the law and the church should not be above it. Having said that I don't think that gay couples should be allowed to adopt for the sake of the children, who are bound to get bullied as a result.

    That is not a reason to stop gay couples from adopting. People used to say the same about mixed race relationships. Now, because enough couples were brave enough not to be influenced by ignorance and bigotry, mixed race children are accepted by all right-thinking individuals. Nuclear families are not the norm any more. The family unit has evolved and studies have proved that a child needs two adults to love and care for them. Gender is irrelevant. Gay couples foster children with no detriment to the child's well-being. It's sad that gay people are still discriminated against in 2010 and there appears to be no logical reason behind it, just an irrational aversion. There's a horrible regression going on in society at the moment, with 'anti this' and 'anti that' and such hatred towards anyone different (race, nationality, sexuality, religion). It's a sad, disgusting and worrying trend. Anyone speaking out against it is slammed as 'PC', as if people are proud of being racists and homophobes and tolerate intolerance from institutions such as the Catholic Church or parties like the BNP. Sickening.

  • Comment number 50.

    I have nothing against same sex parenting, however if a child is placed up for adoption with a Catholic agency then surely that means the mother wishes them to have a Catholic upbringing.

  • Comment number 51.

    Yes I support the right for believers to refuse adoption to "homosexual" people as it is an unnatural environment.

    "Gay people" should not be allowed to adopt or have children as they cannot produce them naturally. The way children come into existence if by a man and women having union, and this is the right natural order and design of the family unit.

    The male provides a stronger role model and the female a softer one and things brings balance to the childs upbringing and world views. It is important for a child to have a loving male and female role model and same sex partners trying to mimic the family unit is a corruption and distortion that will cause harm to the upbringing of the child.

    Following God's ways is the only way for a society to function properly, healthily and in right order - marriage between one man and women, life long commitment and then you have a natural and right foundation to bring children into the world.

    The corruption of the family unit and marriage is due to irreverence and disorder polluting the culture through media and education which has led to a disdain for holiness, decency, faithfulness and the Bible and God standards of righteousness.

    The natural and right order and environment for a child is one man and one women, as this is the relationship required to bring all children into the world.

  • Comment number 52.

    one in a million #28 said:-

    "If God meant homosexuals to have children they would be able to reproduce naturally. The child has no voice in this, if it did would it chose the gay couple?".

    Do children have a voice in whether they are born into Catholic families that then brainwash them with myths?

  • Comment number 53.

    I would rather children be raised in a gay household than by any Catholic home run by priests.

  • Comment number 54.

    Funny how people who worship a man who taught love and kindness for all can then opt to discriminate when it suits them. Perhaps when you've all finished quoting your favourite homophobic bits of the bible you might light to remind yourself of the bit of the bible that asks that you judge not lest you be judged yourself, oh, and how about let he who is without sin cast the first stone... I could carry on but heaven forbid I should teach you all about all of the bible and not just the bits that are useful to your arguement!

  • Comment number 55.

    #2 - Apparently so. However there is an awful hullabaloo if there is prejudice shown AGAINST the religious....depsite that fact that it is their choice as opposed to someone being born gay

    Very sad...

  • Comment number 56.

    While I would agree with the Catholic organization, on the principle of not allowing children in their care being adopted by gay people, on religious grounds.
    Is this going to open a can of worms in other area's of concerns with other religious organizations?
    I somehow think that if this ruling is upheld, then other religious groups surely will be queuing to lodge their particular problems, with current laws, that they say affect their own beliefs, in the courts.

  • Comment number 57.

    At last the courts support reason, it is a pity there are not more logical rulings as this one is.

  • Comment number 58.

    Given the number of adults who make disparaging remarks about their 'strict Catholic upbringing' I don't think that it is less reasonable to have concerns about placing children with devout Catholic couples as gay couples. I doubt very much if an adoption agency would be allowed to pursue a 'No Catholics' policy. I find the idea of opting out of specific laws based on religious beliefs entirely abhorrent. There are white supremecist churches in the USA, these peoples beliefs are part of their religion. so what next - white's only adoption agencies? Everyone should obey the law and discrimination of any type should never be legitimised.

  • Comment number 59.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 60.

    The catholic church should put it's own house in order by rooting-out child molesters amongst their number before pontificating on who is/isn't fit (in their eyes) to provide a safe, secure home to vulnerable children.

  • Comment number 61.

    so it's ok to say Gays cannot adopt and give a child to decent upbringing ? What about the other news today, catholic church having to apologise for paedophiles within it's ranks ? what's worse ?? you tell me.

  • Comment number 62.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 63.

    #34 You have the right not to be discrimintaed against for being gay becasue you are BORN gay. You do not have the right not to be discriminated against for being catholic becasue you CHOOSE to be catholic...

  • Comment number 64.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 65.

    I have no truck with the Catholic church, but if homosexuals were meant to have and bring up children, homosexual sex would result in conception. It does not. This is not discrimination: it is biological fact. Homosexuals want to deny an obvious & irrefutable scientific truth because it suits them. They are no different from the medieval church who denied that the Earth orbited the Sun. Similarly they use bully boy tactics to intimidate realists into denying the truth.

  • Comment number 66.

    To be honest even if it had gone the other way and they had been compelled to consider gay couples as parents, they would only have made it difficult for said couples just as state run adoption agencies do.

    This is one of those occasions though where saying "a person's personal life shouldn't be a consideration" is actually totally untrue. It is VERY important that a child be placed in a safe, stable, loving environment, therefore it is essential the right checks and investigations be done into their personal life.

    It is homophobic that Catholics automatically assume gay people make bad parents, and I'm disgusted with the ruling, but at the same time it would be deeply hypercritical of a church to preach that being gay is a sin and then place orphans with gay couples.

  • Comment number 67.

    well, society should be based on tolerance, and therefore tolerance of different views. As long as other options are available, I do not see the problem. If a child is taken care of by a Religious organisation, it seems normal that this organisation should be able to decide who is best to take care of this child according to their beliefs. Nobody is stopping anyone creating an adoption agency specifically for gay couples, are they? Be cool, mentalities evolve but it takes time. In the meantime, RESPECT of each other's beliefs is the best way forward.

  • Comment number 68.

    I think the Catholic Church should clean it`s own house first! How many times have their priest`s been accused of abusing young children?

  • Comment number 69.

    Were a secular organisation to refuse to place a child with a catholic family for any philosophical reason, the church would be furious - this is pathetically obvious hypocrisy from an organisation that has no place in the modern world.

    No religious view should entitle one to exemption from the law - if this organisation feels it cannot abide by the same rules as others then it should close (although I do not believe that religious organisations have any business organising adoptions).

  • Comment number 70.

    All children would rather be brought up by a gay couple than abused by a priest. This ruling is a travesty and our progressive society is again held back by the backwards cults which have harmed humanity for so long.

  • Comment number 71.

    adoption should only be run by the state, governed by the laws of the land, no other group should have any say.

    the best interest of the child should always be first.

    a loving home is a loving home whatever its make up.

    lesbian couples can have children of their own and no one says those children are not in a loving home just because they have 2 mom's.

  • Comment number 72.

    When i was a child , i needed a mom and a dad, the government has no right to take my Mom or Dad away form me.

  • Comment number 73.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 74.

    Sour grapes from the gay community. Catholic Care should be able to operate, within the Law, as they see fit

  • Comment number 75.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 76.

    The Catholic Church has every right to protect it's beliefs from groups whom oppose them. The case for "social justice" is not exclusive for gay rights but should also be for religious organisations.

    People commenting on this post slating this decision are examples of what they try NOT to be - Discriminatory. We should protect gay rights as well as religious freedom. People critical of church organisations for upholding their beliefs and need to long look at themselves as they discriminate in their quest to non-discriminate

  • Comment number 77.

    The BBC expects people to follow the following rules of posting:
    " We reserve the right to fail contributions which
    •Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others
    •Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable "
    Well I find a high number of these comments offensive and homophobic.
    If anyone tells me again that the LGB community no longer need to "go on" about our rights, and that pride marches are no longer necessary, I will redirect them to discussions like these.
    Homophobia (Catholic or not) is rife in this country. I'm ashamed of being british. Shame on you judge for dragging this issue on.

  • Comment number 78.

    The church should come under the laws of the land, not the other way around. The bible is a book of hatred, demon worship, descrimination, abuse and promoting genoside in the name of 'the lord'. Such a cult should not be allowed to incite its prejudice against the laws of the country.

    I know some people think its a good religion but none have read the bible and cant justify the evil it promotes. Finally I am unsure if I would want children to be influenced by being part of a gay couple. I am fine for homosexuals to go about their business but I think they should consider the influence their life choice may have on the child.

  • Comment number 79.

    I, for one, would like to see the Catholic Church become a 'banned organization' for selectively deciding what laws they will, and will not obey. There is also a solid case for banning them for their cover ups for pedophile priests. They are simply a rotten bag of apples.

  • Comment number 80.

    to the person who said gay couples should not have children as they can not reproduce naturally what about couples would have children through ivf i suppose that should not be allowed either!

    Jesus said love and understand each and everyone but of course as with most religious people they pick and choose which bits of their God to listen to

  • Comment number 81.

    There you go. You can hate people based on their sexual orientation after all. The High Court no less says so.
    What a sad day. Just seems like one stupid decision after another these days.

  • Comment number 82.

    So what next - are the catholic church only going to allow catholics to adopt from them? Is it not better that a child lives in a loving home with a couple of whatever nature than lives in a children's home where the love is limited.

    The catholic church needs to get with the times.

  • Comment number 83. (this one mentions the Catholic church as well)

    Here's something about gay/black/white/alien adoption. Guess what, it's all the same.

    Being a teacher, having grown up with parents who worked in homes for abused children, I can safely say that what matters most to a child is that they're loved and supported. Straight people can do that and gay people can do that. Black people, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Catholics, tree-huggers and the couple down the street who we can't label can all do it too. Why do we insist on living by church laws which date back to a world that we don't live in any more?

    p.s. I couldn't seem to find any articles from the UK - anyone know of any? REAL news sources please - NOT slanted propaganda.

  • Comment number 84.

    "If God meant homosexuals to have children they would be able to reproduce naturally. "

    What does God think about catholic priests abusing children. I would think the catholic church are the last people in world that should have anything to do with adoption

  • Comment number 85.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 86.

    Catholic charities and any other charities should not be able to discriminate against gay people. Gay people can be very good adoptive parents and just as good as anyone else. The charities should not be allowed to get away with prejudice.

  • Comment number 87.

    I presume there are other charities which do consider gay couples. So what's the problem here?

    By law, people are now allowed to lead a gay lifestyle if they so choose, but people are also entitled to believe that children are best raised children in a traditional family environment, i.e. one male parent, one female parent.

    I guess that a Catholic charity places children from predominantly Catholic backgrounds with Catholic families. What's it got to do with Stonewall or gay rights at all?

    If the people running the charity and using it's service are happy, fine. If you are gay and looking to adopt, use a different charity. How hard can it be?

    I sincerely hope this case isn't costing the taxpayer, but it probably is.

  • Comment number 88.

    I am a Christian! Before you yawn and move on, I had quite a few 'gay' friends in the past and they have been really GREAT guys. I have no problem with that. I am sure that they were well able to give a child love and attention, HOWEVER as some have already mentioned there a number of criteria used for child adoption. Surely the idea is to give the child the best!! What if a couple both aged eighty tried to adopt would it be succesful..NO! They wouldn't that 'ageism' Should we clamp down on that and allow them to adopt!
    I am truly not anti 'gay' but lets try and place the kids in the best situation we can get them.
    Therefore ...YES, I agree with the ruling. Well done for 'sticking to your guns'

  • Comment number 89.

    The Law is the law, and religion should not have get outs from it.

    I'm thinking of starting a new religion where paying tax means I go to hell immediately.

    I'll have 60m members inside a week.

  • Comment number 90.

    It never ceases to amaze me how religions and religious people constantly preach hatred towards others. It is no wonder there are so many wars around the World.

    I suspect that if there truly is a God, then they are ashamed of you all.

  • Comment number 91.

    Yet again everyone is talking about rights. Should the Catholic Church have the "right" to be exempt from the ruling. Should the LGBT community have the "right" to adopt. The only right that counts is that of the children involved, and this exemption denies them the right to a whole selection of potential caring loving parents. The Catholic Church should be thoroughly ashamed that they see their "right" to their beliefs is more important than providing children with all possible options.

  • Comment number 92.

    It is the right decision.

    Gay couple's in a stable relationship should be allowed to adopt, but charities (contrary to your article) are not public services or public funded.

    Charities should spend their funding on the mission that they have been established for, and this one is to re home children with catholic families.... If people disagree with the remit of the charity then they don't have to use them or contribute to the funding!

    The fact it got this far is PC gone mad!

  • Comment number 93.

    Given the events of the past few years I'm surprised this Catholic charity has decided it knows best about child welfare.

    There are far worse things that can happen to a child than being brought up by gay parents.

    Being abused by someone in a position of authority who is then protected by the global organisation he works for, for example.

    Missed the name but would like an alternative to some perceptions on this board.

    The Roman Catholic Adoption Agency is one of the most accredited adoption agencies in the country with a success rate higher than just about any other so they do know what they are doing. Although they palce adoptions at a very young age they also deal with some of the most abused young children. Common sense should prevail not some quasi Nu Labour anti discrimination. Here the law is an ass because you can't say on one hand your are allowed to practice your beliefs and on the other hand get chastised for being prejudiced. The Equality actually creates more problems than it's worth but unsurprisingly it's those with religious convictions that come out worse.

    Only time will tell whether this social experiment will be detrimental to children's health and wellbeing but wouldn't make sense to keep that which is working and good for the betterment of children and for the atheists to get over the fact that people with beliefs can 'do good'. The most successful and happiest children on countless surveys are those brought up by their natural parents in a monogomous marriage wouldn't it make sense to try and replicate the best model or do we think we know better than previous generations? Do you really wnat to wait 15-20 years for the results of this experimentation?

  • Comment number 94.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 95.

    The right decision has been made. No recognised religious organisation should be forced by secular diktat to do things that are contrary to its core beliefs and principles. The State already intrudes into far too many things that should remain with the individual. Since 1997, we have become a very centralised authoritarian state, adopting more and more of the ways of the Former Soviet Union, and it is all very disturbing.

  • Comment number 96.

    Is it so wrong to expect an adopted child to have both a male and a female parent? These are kids lives we are talking about.
    Let's take the PC out of it and simply ask what is best for the kids. In my opinion it is a Mum and a Dad. I am sure that a kid at school who had 2 Mums or 2 Dads would be bullied and teased.

  • Comment number 97.

    This ruling is just wrong. I'm gay and pay thousands of pounds in taxes. Why should my tax go to an organisation that activly discriminates against me?

    Also, do the children get a say in whether they wish to be subject to indoctranation into the Catholic faith. Something that will significantly affect future. At then end of the day you don't choose to be gay but you do have a choice over which religion you choose to follow.

  • Comment number 98.

    I'm not a religious person but isn't god supposed to love all his creations and what not, and I really don't see why gay couples shouldn't have the right to adopt, there's is loads of straight couples who abuse their children. As long as the child is comfertable with his/her parents being gay then why make a big deal and instead of trying to stop gays parenting hows about the church does something right and stop one night stand pregnancies.

  • Comment number 99.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 100.

    I don't think same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt, regardless of the beliefs of the adoption agency. (The sexuality of the parents is irrelevant, it's the gender mix that matters - so a lesbian mother and gay father living together would be fine by me).

    Children need parents of both sexes to have the best chance of growing up in to well-rounded, balanced adults. Just as men & women are not the same, so fathers & mothers are not the same and interchangeable, they are both just as important.

    Even many non-religious adoption agencies think the same.


Page 1 of 5

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.