I'm glad she won her case...........

Yes. That's right phoenix. He wouldn't necessarily have had to go into any explicit details. More the relating to one another side of things. And if he couldn't do that, well, that wouldn't be any good.

Wonder what they'll make of it if it goes to appeal.

Yes. I guess he wasn't quite fitted to the job. Sadly.

Re the giving advice specifically about sex aspect, might it not be that the problems regarding sex in a relationship (and I mean any relationship between consenting adults) could actually be one of communication, rather that who puts what where, or does what to who?

(Not entirely sure that I have phrased that correctly, hope that it comes across the way I meant it)

The problem would be if someone was in the middle of having a few sessions of counselling for, say, anxiety and suddenly blurted out something about their sexuality and asked questions about what was normal.

It would be horrendous for that person if they noticed that the counsellor was disapproving and rejecting of them because of their homosexuality. It could be quite damaging if the counsellor refused to talk to them about their experiences.

When I was training as a psychologist/counsellor it was a requirement that all trainees had regular psychotherapy throughout the two years of the course. This was so that the trainees have a chance to come to terms with their own issues and didn't (perhaps unknowingly) work them out to the detriment of their clients.

I wonder if Gary McFarlane has had a chance to explore his attitudes to homosexuality in a counselling situation (with him as the client).

I'm trying to work out how a cross can be unhygienic?

It said in the report that Gary McFarlane had raised these doubts in a training session.
That is what disturbs me.
What sort of training session is it when participants can't ask questions and express doubts.
It makes me question the accuracy of the report - Relate couldn't have dismissed him for a single comment like that.

Not sure it's ever going to be seen as acceptable by everyone. Particularly long term church members.

Still not putting my view. Just thinking aloud.

I'm still thinking about it.

Greatnan I haven't said what my views are! I just put some questions. And waited for answers.

From what I know of the cases, I think the only one who deserved to lose was the Registrar.

Her job is to perform a civil ceremony between same-sex couples, not a marriage therefore she's only overseeing a contract and doesn't have to 'approve' of a life-style, in my opinion.

I thought doctors were still allowed to refuse to do abortions?

Jingle, homosexuality is normal for millions of people. I am surprised that you hold such views - I thought you were more open-minded.
I think it said on the news that he was a paid counsellor, and if that is the case he would fall into the same category as the registrar who refused to conduct same sex civil partnerships. If anybody really feels they can't do part of a job, they must leave the job.

There is nothing abnormal about being homosexual - but if a gay couple need sexual advice then they need to go to someone who knows what he/she is talking about. To offer anything less would be unprofessional.

I always thought that a qualified counsellor/therapist could choose what issues they were prepared to work with e.g. some might not want to work with paedophiles. After all, if you are not comfortable with the subject you are not going to be much good giving therapy! Perhaps someone with more recent knowledge could clarify this point please?

The modern day drive to normalise homosexuality? You mean at last people being able to acknowledge their sexuality openly. I can't even begin to understand how much pain over the years/centuries the 'head in the sand' attitiude has caused [especially within the church].

jo7 that depends if you think being homosexual is a choice. If God made you that way then why aren't homosexuals God's children too? Yes, it should be normalised as it is in fact, as normal as having ginger hair (no offence - I do have a ginger haired daughter and it was the only analogy I could think of!)

Relate were probably not "employing" him in the full sense of the word in the first place. Certainly was not the case when my mum worked for them. Someone on GN will know the present arrangements???
There is a law jo that says that organisations should not discriminate on grounds of sexuality. If you were working as a Relate receptionist , making appointments and Mr X rings up, you are not going to know whether he is gay, or whether he is going to want to talk about sex are you. So you would not have the option on matching clients to the requirements of counsellors.

I don't understand why they dismissed his case.

Quite apart from him not having the necessary knowledge, shouldn't a person's religious views be allowed for? Is it all part of the modern day drive to normalise homosexuality? Should it be normalised?

Well - if he is heterosexual I doubt whether he would be in a position to advise on gay sex - I certainly wouldn't be. I can see he might be happy to give relationship advice - the situation would be simiar to a straight couple - but I hthnk he is right to say he is not qualified to give sexual advice - it would have been dishonest to try and pretend that he could.

I always wear a cross, sometimes it can be seen sometimes not, depends on what I am wearing. An employer would have to have had a very good reason to ask me to stop wearing it. As for Gary McFarlane, I heard him on the radio today and he kept referring to himself in the third person which I thought a bit odd.

He was previously a lawyer but later trained to be a counsellor. He was willing to give relationship advice to gays, just not advice on their sexual relationship. Perhaps Relate could have dealt with the matter differently, after all how much insight could a heterosexual have to the problems a gay couple may have. Having said that I find it difficult to believe that he wasn't aware he could be asked to give counselling to gay couples when he took the job.