And you crying about being branded is ironic given that in your piece you implicitly link gay marriage with abortionists, the great evil of individualism, and those who regard children merely as commodities. Ha ha I wonder how the homosexual reader would feel about being ‘branded’ so.

Oh that’s right, it is only a personal insult when someone implies a comparison between you and someone who may be regarded poorly in society. But not when you do it. Hilarious.

David, look for your apologies elsewhere. An attempt to clarify your misinterpretations of my views is not an apology.

It was written in direct response to my piece. I think we are all clear what you intended to achieve. By all means apologise for it but backpedalling and making it my fault now that you’ve been called on it is hardly improving on the matter.

If you want “brisk dialogue” don’t brand your conversation partners the way you did on this thread. That’ s not playing the martyr, that’s simply calling you on your behaviour. Only one of us soured the milk here.

And now I think we’re done.

It really is drawing a rather long bow to state as you have that I have made direct comments about your character. You could at least be precise about it if we’re leaving the topic to drone on about who insulted who first .

I think for the future try to avoid interpreting yourself into the position of victimized martyr. I know it is a guise that some Christian commentators find themselves comfortable slipping into, presumably because it allows them to avoid the actual issues.

But it doesn’t really allow for brisk dialogue if everyone retreats to their bed to suck their thumbs in outraged self-righteousness.

I think your point on knowing that you were loved resonates with my “commodification” comments – but I’d never heard it expressed that way. Very helpful for us to hear and get your particular direct experiences.

This statement needs some qualification. What I suspect you mean is that there are far fewer BABIES available for adoption today. For two reasons: 1) the legality and cultural acceptance of abortion; and 2) because single mothers no longer face stigma and prejudice. The truth is that thousands of young unmarried mothers were pretty much forced to give up their babies for adoption during the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Often rejected by their shocked, respectable families, these girls had no choice but to relinquish all legal rights to motherhood. Thankfully, adoption became a much more open process in the UK after 1975.

Meanwhile, thousands of British children are languishing in care and many of them will NEVER be adopted. These kids face a very bleak future. A sign of how broken family life has become in our culture, for sure, and the children are paying the price.

Adoption is a great thing but it is also complex. I’m an adoptee myself, adopted into a loving Christian family and reunited with my birth mother in 1997.

I would love to see more Christian families offer to adopt, but they need to be aware that the challenges facing adoptees today are greater than those of my generation of adoptees. At least most of us know that our birth mothers loved us: we are aware it was a harsh and judgmental society that dictated ‘illegitimate children’ be given up for adoption. Most of us realise that our birth mothers were neither incompetent nor cruel. They didn’t give us up for adoption because they rejected us. As my birth mum said to me, they were literally given no choice in the matter.

The issues facing today’s prospective adoptees are, I believe, much tougher. They are more damaged than my generation and therefore their needs are all the greater.

And yet you did. Go figure.

I wouldn’t take various extrapolations to extremes and so personally. It does tend towards excessive defensiveness.

I only mention Bishop Bonner as an obvious example of a Christian leader who had little apparent problem with conducting himself in a way that in my opinion anyway was most prejudicial to his opponents. The example suggests that my actual ‘assumption’ about the conduct of Christians towards those they disagree with is borne out in the factual history of the Christian church.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say this becomes a general rule and therefore it is impossible to disagree with someone and still treat them in a truly loving way. But I do think it is hard to do this.

You will have to forgive me my faint degree of cynicism but where I come from I don’t see a lot of love for the marginalized coming out of the church. On the contrary see a fair bit of self-righteous moralizing that seems more designed to make the faithful, righteous ones feel warm and fluffy.

Nothing personal now David, remember we don’t know each other and I don’t presume to be in a position to comment on people I don’t know.