On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:49:54 GMT, "a.spencer3"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>The latest absurdity is that single sex couples be allowed to adopt ... so,
>therefore, prominent adoption agencies (such as the RCs) who are vehemently
>against such a practice either have to comply (against their faith) or
>close.

The law has allowed single-sex couples to be considered for adoption
for a good few years now. The issue at the moment is whether
organisations offering public services should be allowed to refuse to
offer their services to people on the basis of sexual orientation,
irrespective of any other considerations. Nothing in the law forces
any agency, RC or otherwise, to hand over children for adoption to any
given class of people, it merely requires them not to import a blanket
refusal to consider people a priori.

>Whatever one's thoughts about single sex couple adoption, it is absurd and
>tragic that this (very much minority) interest should demolish other such
>major providers!

It doesn't: they aren't major (about 4% of adoptions at present) and
nothing stops other agencies from doing the job.

PJW

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:27:35 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Tim C. <[email protected]>
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... Following up to Magda <[email protected]> :
...
... > ... >The latest absurdity is that single sex couples
... >
... >As opposed to double sex couples??
...
... yes, that's exactly the point, I think.

No triple/quadruple sex couples in sight?

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:38:32 +0100, Magda <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:27:35 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Tim C. <[email protected]>
>arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
>
> ... Following up to Magda <[email protected]> :
> ...
> ... > ... >The latest absurdity is that single sex couples
> ... >
> ... >As opposed to double sex couples??
> ...
> ... yes, that's exactly the point, I think.
>
>No triple/quadruple sex couples in sight?

Plenty of middle sex couples in UK.
--

Martin

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:46:57 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Martin <[email protected]>
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:38:32 +0100, Magda <[email protected]> wrote:
...
... >On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:27:35 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Tim C. <[email protected]>
... >arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
... >
... > ... Following up to Magda <[email protected]> :
... > ...
... > ... > ... >The latest absurdity is that single sex couples
... > ... >
... > ... >As opposed to double sex couples??
... > ...
... > ... yes, that's exactly the point, I think.
... >
... >No triple/quadruple sex couples in sight?
...
... Plenty of middle sex couples in UK.

No half sex couples?

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:53:36 +0100, Magda <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:46:57 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Martin <[email protected]>
>arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
>
> ... On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:38:32 +0100, Magda <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> ... >On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:27:35 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Tim C. <[email protected]>
> ... >arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
> ... >
> ... > ... Following up to Magda <[email protected]> :
> ... > ...
> ... > ... > ... >The latest absurdity is that single sex couples
> ... > ... >
> ... > ... >As opposed to double sex couples??
> ... > ...
> ... > ... yes, that's exactly the point, I think.
> ... >
> ... >No triple/quadruple sex couples in sight?
> ...
> ... Plenty of middle sex couples in UK.
>
>No half sex couples?

Sus sex?
--

Martin

Following up to Magda <[email protected]> :

>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:27:35 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Tim C. <[email protected]>
>arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
>
> ... Following up to Magda <[email protected]> :
> ...
> ... > ... >The latest absurdity is that single sex couples
> ... >
> ... >As opposed to double sex couples??
> ...
> ... yes, that's exactly the point, I think.
>
>No triple/quadruple sex couples in sight?

one or two chimeras?
--
Tim C.