Rupert’s Blog

Brave man! I really hope our conversations around this are full of grace, truth and gentleness.

I think you’ll find many in emerging/missional/community focused churches are of your view. I’d be there, I think we need to remember Christ died for all, and if He loves everyone, so should I. Am I creating a hierarchy of sins if I discriminate? So I think the church is better served by stopping fighting against regulations and instead standing up for genuinely oppressed people (and I’m not saying that is people of any particular sexual choice) and also showing love to our neighbours.

Jamie Arpin-Ricci asked me if loving people individually was enough, do we need to have a corporate apology to the BLG community?

On the other hand, I’m not sure we should be criticising the LCF, as they also seek to follow Jesus passionately.

Do we spend too much energy looking in the wrong direction?

Good post Rupert.

Very impressed with the way in which you have approached this issue … glad you expressed your point of view so openly. I really hope other Christians will embrace this debate as openly and honestly as you have done. For the first time I feel I have heard a perspective on this debate that is true to the teaching of Christ and as Paul said, true to love and justice. What you have said actually makes me want to go back to church in the hope that Christianity has returned from extremism back to its roots … thanks!

Sorry for being rude about neo-orthodoxy. I came up with a high percentage of neo-orthodoxy on that test too. I do have reservations about certain tendencies which I will save for some other blog.

I agree with LCF on this bit:
The government could easily have left in an clear, blanket opt-out clause for issues of conscience, but didnt. The fact that catholic workers could now be forced to violate their consciences is terrible. I would hate to be put in such a situation. I dont think they deserve it.

Ostensibly this is about justice, but those statements issued by the government sound worrying to me.
For example:
It is ok to teach what religions believe, but not ok to teach that it is true.
It is ok to inhibit the freedom of religious people in order to protect the freedom of homosexual people (freedom from conscience is more important than freedom of conscience).
(In Edinburgh Uni recently it was considered ok to overrule religious freedom in order to protect the secular doctrine that homosexuality is ok. At least the law did its job there, but I thought that in this country we dont do everything by lawsuits.)

Also, we need to be wise to the fact that certain words are understood differently by different people. My atheist friend excuses lust (and porn) as it is merely a matter of sexual orientation: but she still laughs (she knows its not good).

Attitudes cannot be changed at the level of the law (except in an oppressive coercive way), and Christians should fight for freedom and human rights for everybody, protected by simple transparent laws, but not make the same mistake as pro-homosexuality activists by focussing on the law, and trying to worm our beliefs in.

I would say discrimination and phobias are legacies of mankind rather than the church. What specifically should we be apologising for?
A general, ill-defined sense of shame is what many of us feel about Christ’s bride, and that cannot be attractive to others.
We have great reasons to be proud of how Jesus has directed our society. William Wilberforce for one.

Unless you are very sure where the line is, the domino theory is a pretty good one. I dont like the idea of just ‘giving in’ about anything. We should be proactive enough to be LEADING our society towards just, simple, clear laws.

But our laws now appear to implicitly bless homosexual practice. Is the normal suite of human rights nand freedoms ot enough?

How are we going to explain this to the muslim world? How are we going to love them, especially those who accept Sharia law (very similar to Mosaic law!!), when we cant stand other Christians (whether fundamentalists, evangelicals or neo-orthodox) most of whom stand inches away from our position. How are we going to explain why this kind of freedom is good?

Andrew

I can’t say I agree with you on everything here Rupert and this is coming from someone who has had to find a loving, caring and Christian response to my brother, who is gay. However, I just don’t have time today to read it all with the depth it requires!

That for the comments everyone.

Paul - I appreciate the feedback.

I really agree with the fear of the domino theory … or the slippery slope theory. Scott McKnight had a brilliant little thing the falacy of the slippery slope theory here at the end of the post. I just don’t buy it being logically inevitable that if you conceed A, you will end up at Z.

Duncan - thanks. I hope so too, and so far so good. Why do you think this topic in particular generates so much heated debate?

Good point about LCF … I hope I didn’t overstep the mark here in the way i spoke about them. I really don’t like the stuff they churn out, it just seems so angry. But i do know they are part of the same family. Gosh - how do we say we disagree with each generously?

Anon - thanks so much for visiting here, and taking some time to comment. It is so meaningful to have someone comment in the way you have, and if it is only for you, i am glad that i wrote the post.

I do think church is changing all over the place, but there is still sections of the church that i find very difficult. There are many of us who are beginning to find the courage to speak up about some of these issues, but it does feel as though it is going against the flow. Not a comfortable place to be, but for the sake of others, we are trying to find a way through the extremes in a middle ground that holds onto some of roots, but does not use the same rhetoric. Hard at times, and i am sure i don’t get it right all time, but a journey worth pursueing.

If you would like to continue a conversation more privately, you could email me at

rupert at cce dot uk dot net

But if you would prefer to remain annonymous, then please do.

Andrew / Anon … thanks for taking the time to comment, and i glad you felt able to disagree. You make some good points, and actually there is much that i agree with you about (eg. law and adoption agencies)

My problem with the LCF is this: i don’t think they are being honest with us. They distort the position of the government, and then shoot them down (a true straw man argument). The problem isn’t with their argument, but their portrayal of the government position in the first place.

I repeat again: i think there are some challenges, but not half as much as the LCF portray.

And i still think there is much in the SOR that we should be agreeing with. For example, i would be outraged if someone refused to let me book a room in hotel because i believed in Jesus. So why would we think it is acceptable to do that if someone is gay?

On the law blessing homosexual practice … i just don’t see that. I think there is a huge difference between “allowing” and “blessing”. The law doesn’t bless anything - it just says that this is Ok to do, this isn’t. We can’t impose our Christian morality on society that doesn’t believe in Christ or follow him. What this law is really doing is making sure that people don’t “curse” people with a homosexual orientation … and that is a good thing i think. There are laws on descrimination on racial, faith, and sex descrimination, so why not something on sexual orientation?

Hi Matthew, thanks for the comment - i would love to hear what it is you agree with and what you disagree with?

Rupert, I broadly agree with you, but I’m surprised no once has brought up the topic of homosexual/lesbian parenting. Isn’t that where the rubber hits the road in this debate?

Still don’t have time to comment much (this perhaps a debate to have over a pint Rupert, it’s been a while!.

One thing that really really annoys me when it comes to Christians discussing anything to do with homosexuality is that so very few (on both sides of an argument) seem to have any real experience of gay people. It’s all too theoretical and usually coloured by stereotypes of one sort or another (again, on both what could be very broadly called the conservative and liberal sides of the debate).

To echo what others have said, I appreciate the balanced way in which you’ve put things across here, Rupert.

Just to focus in on one aspect, I think Alastair raises an important point re gay couples adopting/parenting. This is a very different issue e.g. to whether gay partnerships should be recognised in law. The latter issue concerns the law giving two consenting adults the freedom to make their own decisions about how they want to live and commit themselves to each other; in the former case there is a third party involved who has no choice in the matter - and a child at that. It would be a grave mistake to confuse the two issues, yet it seems that this is happening here, in terms of the legislation that is being put through.

To contextualise my view on this, I’m coming from a point of view that I suspect would be a fair bit more “liberal” re homosexuality than most of the posters here - but I think that irrespective of one’s views on the rightness or otherwise of homosexual marriage etc, there are many, many reasons - both in general and with regard to our society in particular - as to why the ideal is for a child to be parented by a man and a woman, in a stable marriage. And if the state finds itself responsible for a child’s upbringing, it should be aiming for the ideal. The child’s welfare, and that only, is what matters.

re:parenting …

single people are allowed to adopt … I can think of several cases (not going into specifics or names) where a very courageous and determined single person has poured her life into the life of a child and given him so much when his quality of life prior to the adoption was incomparable, and yet there are people in ‘Christian’ circles for whom the thought of a single person taking on a child for adoption is contrary to the will of God (not my thoughts obviously).

I’m not saying it is right or not - each case on its own merit - however, would an adoption agency question the sexuality of a same sex couple when adopting? No. And that couple may have addictions to pornography, unhealthy sexual relationships with others, hidden affairs, severe hangups from unresolved conflict in childhood themselves, underlying problems in their marriage and may eventually divorce, etc. that go unaddressed and as a result they unwittingly transfer these onto the adopted child/ren.

would a child raised in a home where two people loved each other benefit more than in a home where affection was never shown?

would a gay couple demonstrate or practise their sexuality in front of their children any more or less than a hetrosexual couple who are overly affectionate and physically open when communicating with one another?

would a child be a more rounded and stable human being if raised in a home that holds tolerance, acceptance and unconditional love high above religiosity and repression?

food for thought …

—————–

Rupert,

Thanks so much for your response … I’ll be in touch via email soon … would appreciate communicating further.

Anon, for now…!

I agree that parts of the LCF material come across as angry and as if they are simply repeating a mantra or sermon point, and I know of other Christian activist groups I know of who slip up there sometimes. It isnt just Christians. In fact it is so common that it is so refreshing when you do find a group that doesnt do that.

The main thing that disappoints me is that the church finds itself merely reacting to this.

I have a friend (not me ) from a very conservative background who has struggled with issues of sexuality, who in naivete became involved with a homosexual couple after he rented a room with them. He doesnt like to talk about it much, but I know that he now struggles with so much shame that he cannot cope with women (though he still dreams of getting married and having kids) and uses porn instead (which is a vicious cycle). He lost his job over the porn thing and is steadily recovering as he works in volunteer work.
Personally I myself went through a spell of moderate homosexual feelings, but not until after I had destroyed my heterosexuality with porn (Some of the “heterosexual” stuff on the internet is unspeakably shameful, and in comparison to that stuff I have no problem with “loving homosexual relationships”). It still makes me feel ill unless I find a way to laugh about it.
We need to be real though that these things are more than a lifestyle choice, and there are no totally private matters.
Hope I am not going to get into trouble for this.

These are things you cant change:
race, gender.
These are things that you can change, but often are difficult:
religion, sexual orientation/desires, political opinions and criminal behaviour.

I guess resolving those things are more difficult. Personally, I do not think that sexuality should be elevated to the same status as race/gender issues. I think that is a joke (forgive me anyone who disagrees). But maybe to be consistent I should say that it is time that religious belief was less protected as well.
But I do think that freedom of conscience is something that we need to protect if we love people: a violated conscience is a great way of stopping a

adam: thanks for putting better than I would be able to! I’m not sure our views on homosexuality are the same, but I definately think the world has gone to pot when it starts questioning the wisdom of a mother and father raising a child. One thing I have noticed is that every time a shocking story comes on TV about some crazy family and what the kids are doing, the father is not mentioned, not interviewed, and not seen. It seems clear he is not on the scene at all. The funny thing is, no-one ever comments about this. No-one for one minute (on TV) seems to put 2 and 2 together here.

On the issue of single adoption, well I guess its not wrong to be a single mother or single father, but I think we can all agree that its preferable to have a mum and a dad, and that it was God’s intention for the same to raise a child.

“would a child raised in a home where two people loved each other benefit more than in a home where affection was never shown?”

I don’t think anyone is arguing for unsuitable couples to adopt children; rather, that given a loving homosexual couple, and a loving heterosexual couple, the heterosexual couple should be favoured.

You can have a loving hetrosexual couple that are into pornography and may at some point divorce or have an affair … should they be favoured over a homosexual couple who may not?

I’ll reiterate that I am committing to neither viewpoint as this is still something I am working through … my point is, however:

How can you judge and who can tell who will do the better job …?

The reality is that in todays fragmented society you can’t. Nothing is certain … except that homosexual couples have never had the opportunity and have forever been persecuated by judgements imposed upon them by the righteous … the same righteous that champion wars, burnt spiritual women at the stake, forbade women to speak openly in church,instructed beaten partners to remain faithful to abusive spouses, were happy to ignore affairs in order to protect the decent image of Christian marriage …

Jesus said you’ll know by the fruit … every tree needs a chance to grow…

Any willing farmers? White, male, Christian, American/British of course … and at the risk of being ageist … young and fit enough to plough fields, tend crops and harvest fruit … experience not necessary … will supply detailed handbook with clear instructions.

PS How many pastor’s children are in counselling today???

thanks for the further comments everyone.

OK - on the adoption issue. I have been wondering about a post about this … but wondering if i have the courage

Good points made by all, (Alastair/Anon/Adam) on this issue - says Rupert, sitting on the fence!. Seriously though, there are things that i agree with from all the different perspective shared.

One point: To pick up on something Adam said, that we should be aiming for the ideal. I understand that, but i think it isn’t realistic. There is NO such thing as an ideal parent(s). There are many qualities that you would want for parents, but in reality we all fall short of that pretty much constantly. The issue being debated here is: where do we draw the line between what we are happy with (but less than ideal) and what we are not?

BUT, this is really off topic. The SORs really aren’t making law about gay adoption. That was settled in law a long time ago. If a Christian works for the social work dept., they will have been involved in adopting children to same-sex couples. This law is now making it impossible for non-state adoption agencies to exclude same-sex couples.

Back to topic - anon … no you are not in trouble! I think to be fair, that we have to acknowledge that there is at some debate whether people’s sexual orientation can be changed, at least in every person. So maybe that does come under the same banner at gender and race …

I still don’t think that discrimination for other areas, such as beliefs / religion is right.

And Matthew, thanks for your comment. I would love that beer. I am not sure that i agree though. My experience is that people who actually know gay people, tend to be a little more compassionate and soft than folks who don’t (generalisation i know, but certainly that would be my experience). Somehow they seem to wrestle with their principles on one hand and love / compassion on the other. I think those are two great things to hold in tension.

I wonder if one of the problems in this debate is what I could be described as the “hermeneutic of love”. That is, it seems to me that an increasingly popular way of determing what is right or wrong is simply to sum up the amount of love involved, and use that as a guide. Its a similar method to the ethic of “follow one’s heart”, where if something feels good to you, then it is probably the right thing to do.

I cannot think of anything further than the way of the follower of Christ. Without going into examples, I would have thought it clear that Jesus’ definition of “love in action” is a far cry from what seems to be “right in our own hearts”. Christian ethics are not based on what we feel to be right or true, nor are they based on adding up how much “love” is involved in a given situation. Rather, regardless of own desires and feelings, we must love God first. Scripture also says if we love God we must follow his commandments. And loving God and keeping his commandments means often making our own (fallen/sinful) desires secondary to His.

What has this got to do with this discussion? I am thinking it might help us frame the debate somewhat. I have brought up this example before, but the way in which (Apostle) Paul deals with the Corinthian man who “loves” his mum a bit too much (1 Cor 4?) illustrates that consent and love do not add up to God’s perfect will. There are certain things in the world which God has ordained, and no matter how much love and consent is involved, if you go against the grain, you are sinning. In other words, there are absolute morals of some type. Absolute, as in the context and circumstances do not ultimately determine right and wrong.

BTW, I am not equating homosexual relationships with incest or anything like that. The example is to make a point regarding something which God has decreed “this is the way it is”, and to see that love and consent don’t get a look in.

Now I wondering, does this perspective help us discuss this at all? (Or do folks not agree with my example as illustrating my point?)

I suggest you participate in the survey/questionaire on:

http://www.needgod.com/

I did the survey, apparently I am going to hell! The authors seemed to forget that someone filling it in might actually know Jesus and love God!

I think you make a great point matthew that this can get very theoretical, i’ve long hold the view that often people take the issue of homosexuality as their touchstone as it is not their issue, they don’t feel attracted to the same sex so it is very easy to be black and white about it. If that’s 90/95% of the population it would seem to be easy points to score when this is taught or discussed in church.

It reminds me a little of the story of the pharisee who thanks God that he is not like that tax collecter/sinner…

Paul, I think you’ve made a valid point, but I’d like to offer some further viewpoints…

1) I know some Christians who have struggled with same-sex attraction (to use a gender-neutral term) and that has not made them change their minds or soften their viewpoints on this issue. On the contrary, they remained convinced. Indeed, I’ve met many many people who have admitted to having desires in this area (whilst remaining heterosexual).

2) I also think some of us can relate to struggling with deeply held identity issues and/or confused sexuality. I think that opening this up more would help the church work through its struggles with homosexuality. My point is, its not just those that define themselves as gay or lesbian that are struggling in this whole larger domain of sexual identity and sexual desire.

3) I’d also like to comment that this debate for me is not theoretical. My wife and I have several gay friends, including someone I do business with. We have no problem with them (in fact we rather like them!), no more than we do with our friends who sleep around or watch porn. The issue is what people do. As to who we are, we are ALL a confused bunch of sinners who need the light and love of Christ in our lives to discover our identity in him.

Rupert, I kind of agree with you on my point about Christians and actually knowing and interacting with gay people.

Your position does become far more compassionate because you can actually connect with the human beings that are, primarily what gay people are, i.e. people first, gay second. Just the same as I’m a guy first, and a Christian second (is that controversial?).

My issue is with Christians who take a position on EITHER side of the debate without actual knowing (a) what gay people feel about it, and (b) assuming what their response would automatically be ‘liberal’, for want of a better term.

Without wanting to get into the specifics of the SORs (I think the LCF have some good points, they just put them across really badly), I’ll leave this particular discourse with one thought:

If, and that’s a big IF, the church (in its broadest sense), could ever get this whole issue “right”, imagine how many people would see the grace and peace of Jesus Christ come alive.

Anonymous said…
I suggest you participate in the survey/questionaire on: http://www.needgod.com/

Alastair said…
I did the survey, apparently I am going to hell! The authors seemed to forget that someone filling it in might actually know Jesus and love God!

exactly, even as Christians we don’t always get things right! the same applies to the spin factor being discussed here.

LOL, I cheated on the test and filled in all the answers as if I had been a perfect person, and it still came out telling me I’d broken commandments and was going to Hell!

To clarify what I said earlier re a married man and woman being the “ideal” scenario vis a vis adopting a child, of course it ought to go without saying that nobody is an ideal parent. What I meant is that, given the alternatives in terms of married/single, male and female versus male-male or female-female, the married man-and-woman alternative is the best one on the table, in the sense that it has by far the strongest evidence base behind it, certainly historically and also in terms of contemporary research (quite apart from moral/religious convictions). That is not, of course, to say that married couples do not often make bad parents, or that single or gay people often make good parents, but if all that we know about the people involved is their relationship status, then that’s how the evidence stands.

Of course, in reality, adoption agencies will be able, generally, to ascertain somewhat more than that about potential adopters, but even then that’s very subjective and limited. As posters here have pointed out, it’s impossible to see down the road, even for the potential adopters themselves, never mind their family or close friends, never mind an adoption agency employee who will only get to know them to a certain degree. There is also, in this country, the fact that there is an overwhelming surfeit of people who want to adopt as compared to the number of infants up for adoption (largely due to abortion.) This means that adoption agencies are in the enviable position of being able to pick and choose. Under this scenario, if the child’s interests really are what is being put first, the decision - if it is to be based on the evidence - should be for the scenario which has been shown to have the highest likelihood of a good outcome for the child. Children should not be made guinea pigs in a social experiment.

To contextualise it, I know that both my parents would agree that alone, they would not have been able to parent me as well as together. In terms of a Dad-Dad combination, I’m sure my Dad would still have been a good Dad, and it would’ve been great to have that doubled by another potentially good Dad, but for a start I would have missed out on having a female parent, and secondly, due to prejudice all-too-prevalent in society, unless I’d gone to a very unusual school, my life would have been made an absolute misery once any of the other kids found out about my home life. Not my Dads’ fault, nor mine, but a consideration none-the-less if there were to have been alternatives on the table.

Sorry if that’s been long-winded, but these are sensitive issues and I want to do my best not to be misunderstood here.

Good discussion everyone. I haven’t managed to get on to the website (my ISP is playing up i think) but now i know what is going to happen! Makes a good point though.

Folks - i have appreciated the spirit is which we have talked about this. These are not easy issues, and one that often generates a lot of heat, and while we may not all agree, we have all be generous to each other, listened, and responded kindly. For that i truly thank you all.

And Matthew, i think your final thought is what we all long for: for others to see the grace of God. That is probaly why we can get so heated when talking about these issues … so much seems at stake.

I suspect that Adam is suffering from the same misapprehension about the numbers of prospective adopters and adoptees as many others in the UK.

There are in fact tens of thousands of children in inappropriate short term placements looking either for adoptive parents or long term foster parents. The number of people willing to care for these children is woefully few.

As a member of an Adoption/Fostering Panel I can tell him that we have hundreds of children in our area with only a small number of applicants of any sort willing to offer themselves and fewer still emerging from the rigorous assessment process.

The greatest need remains for large family placements of four and more children – though we often have trouble placing two in the same home.

Because of the lack of willing adopters many of these children have already been in four or more short term placements. The sense of loss and despair they felt when rejected by (or removed for their own safety) from their birth family is made worse by this lack of permanent or long term placements.

In placing a child the team of social workers are interested in only one thing, they look at the pool of prospective parents/carers and try to find the best match possible. If none is deemed suitable the child remains unplaced.

How I would long for the vision Adam has to be the reality!

We are also a same sex partnership of 27 years with one son (19) who has severe learning difficulties and are once again going through the assessment process for two siblings. I can assure Adam that the long and detailed assessment leaves no stone unturned and is outstandingly thorough. I sometimes get the feeling the assessing social worker knows more about us than we do.

There are indeed few babes-in-arms and a large number of people who want them. Sadly the great majority of these applicants do not want the vast number of other children from 2 to 16 crying out for a loving home.

As Director of Communications for the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement I hope this information is not too “extreme” for the gentle souls here or that others feel marginalised by its truth.

It should also be more generally known that some of the children waiting to be placed may not be placed in a home where there is a man present, and a few where there is a woman in a caring role.

These children really do need people other than married couples to be succesful applicants.

Martin - thanks for sharing your experience and perspective here. I appreciate you commenting, and the way in which you have expressed your comments here.

Your points bring some real experience to the whole area of adoption - which i for one, don’t have first hand experience of. Thanks.

Maybe my use of the word extreme was unhelpful in the post. I think i was trying to find a middle ground somewhere in the debate. I appreciate that you and others may not agree with the ground i am trying to stand on, but i think there are a large number of people who don’t agree with a same-sex relationship, but also strongly object the stance and rehetoric coming from such groups at LCF - and it was really their perspective that i was wanting to challenge. So that is what i meant by “extreme” but maybe another word would have been more helpful.

Rupert, I realise what you were doing and I honour those who read scripture and find a different answer to mine on the issue.

We realise that the growing numbers of families such as ours does pose a challenge to the way many Christians think.

For some 30 years I have been a priest teaching and celebrating with couples the sacredness of marriage, I believe marriage vows are sacred and inviolate – but we have many divorced and remarried couples amongst our closest friends and share communion with them at the Lord’s table joyfully and happily.

I understand what it is to hold a principle and to embrace those whose lives may be at odds with it.

There are extremists – we must acknowledge that – but I have never considered myself one – I was expressing a little surprise at seeing LGCM as the antithesis to such extremism and thereby included in that list.

Living with our son who has learning difficulties and my mother who has mental health issues teaches me to search beyond the “labels” and to find the person beyond – here we live together in God’s grace and love. Here I find the wonder of a son who prays more earnestly than I ever have and a mother whose illness reveals a deeper God than I could dream of. I am dumb and thankful.

Perhaps you think you embrace a “moderate” position – when I believe the same about myself! – I am smiling and not in any way distressed that you should wish to see yourself thus – I am only asking for a fair hearing.

Martin - thanks for your gracious response.

My original post was written with a usual audience of probably more conservative christians in mind. I never dreamt that i would end being linked at thinkinganglican.org.uk and find that a whole different kind of reader would emerge! Good blogging lesson, and please forgive my cheap jibe at LGCM.

I don’t agree with LGCM. And so I do think that i do stand in the middle of groups such as LCF and LGCM - but it is always a question of perspective!! Others would consider me liberal / ultra conservative depending on how they see things.

I am trying to hold in tension how i understand scripture, and recognising the image of God in every human being. You are right, we live a world that so often messes with our ideals, and how to live in that world with grace and love, yet not abandoning one’s principles is ever so difficult! At least that is my experience.

I appreciate the dialogue!

Hi Martin,

I really appreciated reading your posts here. This blog is becoming an increasingly interesting and diverse forum for discussion.

Thank you for raising the issue of post-infant children who need adoptive parents. I’m sorry for my lack of clarity in my original post - I was using the vague word “infant” in the fairly narrow sense of not long out of the womb, i.e. the pre-2’s whom you refer to. While I’d stand by my opinions re adoption for the “infant” group, I agree that the situation is very different regarding adoption of older children at the moment in the UK. Under circumstances where there is a shortage of suitable married couples willing to adopt, then personally I feel it to be a good thing for e.g. gay couples, or single people, to be able to.

As you point out, this is very much a live issue, and one that I fear will only become worse as more and more children find themselves caught up in terrible domestic situations.

May God’s blessing be on you and your family as you continue on this journey.

Adam

Coming back to the legislation, while those may be my views, I feel it would be very wrong to force them on, for instance, the oft-cited Catholic adoption agencies. It surely cannot be right to force people to act against their consciences - particularly if they are providing what is no doubt an amazing, life-changing service for many of the children under their care. Again, at the end of the day it’s the children we’re trying to serve here.

there still might be a compromise. The commons have announced there could be a way forward, although it could just be a ploy to get the legislation passed the house of Lord’s!

Thank you for that. I’m not familiar with the proposed law, nor affected by it, but I think you’ve expressed very well much of what I would like to say about such things.

Steve - thanks. This law is UK only, although other countries are passing similar laws i think (eg. Canada), so won’t affect you in South Africa at present. Do you find some of same discussions happening there?