Discrimination ok, if based on religion? what else then?

The churches second that notion Their charity is not charitable enough for some. I for one think it is a shame to force anyone into doing something which is offensive to their conscience. I say if you want seperation of church and state, be honest about it. There is no requirements of belief for public office; don't force public creeds on private institutions.

No, just get over that. I am sure that religion is extremely personal, and that it is extremely wrong to force someone into subjection to YOUR beliefs by law. Isn't that what we are trying to avoid?

Sorry, but this wasn't just about the Anglicans. OP says 'Anglicans have backed the Vatican'. I'm just taking a stab in the dark here, but since the Vatican rules for the enitre world, I think the arguement will extend outside of the UK Who knows, maybe the Vatican even has jurisidction over US Catholics, the ones who have that 'seperation of church and state' thingy.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I say, look it up. See which came first. This religious 'funny business' of saving orphans, or the state-run adoption services? Not that it matters, but I don't think it's fair to talk about 'getting into' a 'business' that the church basically wrote the rules for way back before there were rules, and then, turn around and call it 'black-mail' if the church gives up the 'business'.

Well, it is. It is at the very least not showing respect for a person's belief, possibly even that of the children themselves.

Hate to be a disappointment, but I am not Jewish.The Bible forbids shrimp.
The Bible forbids writing more than one letter at a time on the Sabbath.
The Bible forbids tossing an object off of your property on the Sabbath.Anyone who follows everything in the Bible in this day and age is odd. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Do the children get a say-so? Should they? Just a question.

All of it. Common sense. Jesus condemns any any action that goes against your conscience. My conscience is picky. It condemns not only homosexuality, but fornication, masturbation, divorce, etc. Maybe you are right, and I should stop giving special treatment to homosexuality. If the church sees fit to give kids to fornicators, masturbators, etc, why not to everyone?

Not in a vaccuum, no. In real life the children will almost definitely get discriminated against themselves.

No, you asked 'so which parts of the Bible do you cherry-pick your beliefs from'? I said, all of it. I cherry pick from all parts of the Bible. Some of the cherries are rotten, some are not yet ripe. Mine, of course. If my common sense tells me to eat shellfish, I will. If someone else's tells them not to, that's fine by me. I know plenty of people who don't eat shellfish for reasons outside of the Bible. Why do you automatically assume everything I say is Bible-related? It has nothing to do with what Jesus condemns or doesn't. It has to do with WHO He condemns. If you honestly feel that something is ok, then He can judge you. Further, this whole argument has nothing to do with whether I feel that homosexuality is right or wrong, but whether I feel private organizations should have to operate under the same rules as public ones. Some people can't seperate issues.

Oh, stop. You are harping on 'minority' too much. Minority children in a house hold of white parents will have things just as hard as the white children of a minority. The ideal situation is when all of these factors are considered, and not just finances.

I believe and hope that I am getting things right. I will never know for sure. I do not know that I am so different from you, believing and hoping in what you think is right. I am Catholic, and no apologies about it. And sure, the Bible is the basis of the teachings. But am I supposed to live the way an Old Testament Jew lived? No, the OP has nothing to do with whether I think homosexuality is wrong. I am making an argument for the rights of churches to follow their own beliefs. You go to a Buddhist temple, you take your shoes off. It is respect.

I said quite upfront, that this 'tradition' does not matter. But it is wrong to say 'if you can't follow the rules, get out of the 'business', when the 'business' was started long before the rules. Maybe you should consider other options, like time constraints, personal interest in your other points, or whether or not they were covered by another member. If I see someone give an argument to a post that is similar to what I would say, I often skip making the same point. Nevertheless, I will review your post, and see what I have ommitted. That's a straw man. You said the church 'used to teach'. What does that matter now? And you have assumed that some orphans will be rotting on the streets. If that is true, it is the fault of both parties for being so stubborn.I want you to substantiate this whole baloney about orpahns being sinners anyway. I have never heard of that. And I want to know what about bowing out of a competition constitutes blackmail? Is an ultimatum blackmail? I haven't been around for 50 years yet, Taz. Discriminating is always wrong. Placing a child in a home that will not cause him to be discriminated against through no fault of his own is a good thing. The world is not ready for your version of 'right'. It is likewise wrong to force your opinions on other religions. Force them on the government if you like.

Honestly, I am predicting that the churches will cave in this respect. I would have no fear about it except for the perhaps legitimate fear of bigotry against the children by their peers. In that regard, all institutions have the same duty, and it does not begin and end at the 'cash' part of parenting either.

Well, let's just say it would not be the first time a pope has caved under pressure. I am interested to see the results of the anti-birth control cases, and whether christian hospitals have been forced to administer birth control, or abortion. Serious? That is like saying there is so much poverty in the world, that giving a child to a destitute family is 'no big deal'.