So, however, do the sexual acts of a medically sterile heterosexual couple. Such presumably make up quite a portion of those applying to be adoptive parents. The church can bang on about miracles being able to happen and quote the barren Sarah giving birth to Isaac at ninety-six after everyone had given up on her but they also reject most of the medical technology helping couples to conceive for themselves. I’d be interested to know whether heterosexual couples are rejected by Catholic adoption agencies if they have tried such things that the church also condemns in the way of fertility treatments.

Anyway - to get to the nub of the issue, a sterile heterosexual couple is just as “imperfect”, sexually speaking, as a (sterile) homosexual couple. For centuries of course, it was grounds for the anullment of the marriage itself. To admit such would threaten the very basis of the teachings on homosexuality in my opinion.

That they are not ready to do for themselves, so anything that forces them to confront it is welcome in my opinion (as a militant liberal gay Catholic of course). To be willing and desirous to take on the care of a child is an act of creation in itself and, one hopes, of the utmost selflessness - of course they would not be serving the children’s interests well if they placed kids with couples, gay or straight, who appeared to want a “life accessory” rather than a lifetime of devotion to another human being.

My comments are not an ad hominem attack as I do not with to undermine the argument.

As it happens my views are in accord with those expressed here that gay couples should absolutely have the right to adopt and if a child is up for adoption then the sexuality of prospective parents should be no barrier to a child entering a balanced and loving environments.

It is true to believe that I came across this website whilst looking at opinions with respect to fathers rights. However, the issue of gay adoption does in no way form part of my personal issue, other than I should have the right to stop my child being put up for adoption if I am able to care for that child. At this time I do not have that right.

What I found here though I believe is appalling, as stated in my previous two posts.

On the matters in hand, Ruth Kelly in my opinion, is the wrong person in the wrong job, her strong religious beliefs should preclude her any power with respect to gay rights. Her beliefs are prejudicial to her role, simple as that.

I believe in gay adoption, but also believe that the sorts of views expressed on this site by Antonia with respect to men should be prejudicial to adoption of a child in this instance.

Believe what you wish and I will continue to do likewise.

1. As I said earlier, there is nothing in this particular post to either warrant or justify an ad-hominem attack on Antonia.

2. Your sanctimonius attitude might have held a little more water had it not been quite so easy to find out that you have an ongoing personal issue over child access, and that, I’m afraid rather recasts your remarks into a different context.

The comments box of a blog is not the right venue for you to air your personal grievances by transferring them to someone you’ve never met and who’s stated views and opinions have no bearing whatsoever on your personal situation.

The quote in my original statement from Antonia that men’s calls for equality should not carry any weight as there is not yet complete equality for women is disgusting.

I regard the statements with respect to domestic violence on this site as a personal attack on me and they’re wrong, not all men commit domestic violence, only a small minority and they should be dealt with.

I totally stand behind the statements in my previous message. Any suitable adult should be able to adopt regardless of sexuality, but anyone who displays overt mysogyny, mysandry, racism etc. etc. should be removed from the list.

I believe that Antonia has shown deep mysandry in her statements on this site.

I couldn’t say whether Antonia has ever give adoption much thought, never having enquired into her personal life, but I am absolutely sure that I’ve never seen her post anything that warrants such a small-minded ad-hominem attack on her as a person.

Her political opinions on other matters are simply not at issue here.

However, Gay adopters should be as vigerously checked as their gay counterparts.

In Antonia’s case she should certainly not be allowed to adopt. The depth of her anti-male sentiment and regrettably expressed views on this site:

“in a world where women are overwhelmingly more likely to be paid less, be victims of violence and have no or little political power, I’m not sure that cries of sexism against men have much weight.”

say clearly to me that Antonia could not provide a balanced environment for a child of either sex.

The justification for this seemingly contradictory position lies in a truly spectacular piece of doublethink used by many churches, not just the Catholics.

The ‘reasoning’, if you can call it that, is that because the very few presumed biblical references to homosexuality refer specifically to sexual practices and not to generality of homosexuality, this allows them adopt a position in which its’ okay to be gay, but only as long you don’t have sex.

So a single gay person may get through their vetting either by omission (being single they don’t ask about the sex life) or on the basis of an exressed commitment to celibacy, but a gay couple would not be accepted because, being a couple, it would be assumed that their relationship has a physical component to it.

All complete rubbish, of course, but seemingly enough to convince themselves that they’re not really prejudiced, they’re just being moral.