-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
But to say "we won't let gays adopt any children" is just wrong.
From your point of view, from a Catholic point of view it is wrong to allow Gays to adopt. Since both are moral stances the government should not interfere. It has and is therefore legislating for one morality and against the other.
Quote:
Really? I don't know that that's true. Divorce rates are huge. Being married doesn't seem to guarantee stability.
I'd bet that break-ups among unmarried couples are higher and a partner is usually more likely to scarper than a husband. It has happened where I live and the wife is left litterally holding the baby.
Quote:
That's not true. There is no evidence to support that. Children raised by same sex couples are just as well adjusted (or disfunctional) statistically as those raised by hetero couples.
It is well known that children need rolemodels in order to identify with others. Without my father I would look to my Grandfather, without him I would look to other older men, but then I'm looking outside the family. Besides, any study which showed that same-sex couples might be at all worse would be decried as homophobic and locked away. So it's not actually possible to get realistic statistics.
Quote:
The determining factor is not the sex of the parents, but the quality of the parenting.
So having NO male role models would have no affect on a boy's developement.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
It's a complex issue, and I need to hear more from the involved parties to be able to judge.
But I do find it remarkably ironic that in the United Kingdom, it wasn't that long ago that catholics required an Act of Parliament to force the general population to recognise their own rights and emancipation. For quite some while, they were the "morally aberrant" ones.
:no:
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Yes, and that had something to do with our long history of wars with Catholic countries and issues with catholic monarchs. I don't think that something as modern as morals were used, they just didn't have any rights. Pitt the Younger tried to force emancipation, but King George refused as it would have forced him to recind his coronation oaths.
Since these issues are probably older than the USA is, it's hardly the most relevant comparison.
~:smoking:
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Yes, and that had something to do with our long history of wars with Catholic countries and issues with catholic monarchs. I don't think that something as modern as morals were used, they just didn't have any rights. Pitt the Younger tried to force emancipation, but King George refused as it would have forced him to recind his coronation oaths.
Sinec these issues are probably older than the USA is, it's hardly the most relevant comparison.
:inquisitive:
It was first and foremost a religious and therefore a moral circumstance. Moral theology is hardly a modern invention.
And if you think the issues caused by discrimination against catholics are not relevant, try visiting a funny little place called Northern Ireland (or even Glasgow) - or ask your Prince William who he is entitled to marry.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
This one has all the ingredients of a backroom topic. Religion, gays, liberal legislation........
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6289301.stm
There's a surprise!
Just who do the Catholics think they are? Whether you agree with the legislation or not, it is about to become the law of the land. Passed by a,
barely, democratically elected government. Perhaps I should ask for an exemptment from, say, the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 and then pay a visit to Kelly and Blair. :whip:
I suspect that Catholics think they are the same as everyone else - citizens in a country free to express opinions about laws, those already in force and those about to come in to force and like everyone else in the land entitled to freedom on conscience within the law.
I read the article very carefully and I see no call for Catholics to disobey the law. I also took the trouble to read the Cardinal's letter to check what he is asking for. I suspected that the BBC was wrong in saying that it was against Catholic teaching to place children with gay people and if you check the text you will see that the Catholic Church has no difficulty in placing children with single people who happen to be gay; the difficulty arises with homosexual couples. The Cardinal's position is that if and when the law came in to effect as it is, Catholic adoption agencies would have to close rather than be forced to do something that is against the law.
Lord Falconer is quite entitled to express his view that: "".......as a society that we should not discriminate against people who are homosexual, you cannot give exclusions for people on the grounds that their religion or their race says we don't agree with that." but he cannot expect people to continue to run things like adoption agencies if they feel they will be forced to act in a way that they consider immoral. In fact in other debates about this law it has been said that nobody will be forced to act against their consciences; if they don't want to place children with gay couples for adoptions or allow those with civil partnerships to share double beds in their hotels they should cease providing adoption services or leave the catering industry. Now the Catholic Church say they will do this and it is suddenly "blackmail".
It is quite consistent to condemn the church's beliefs and criticise Catholics for holding them but to suggest that they do not have the right to question laws or to opt out of providing services on a matter of conscience is not just.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Yes, and that had something to do with our long history of wars with Catholic countries and issues with catholic monarchs. I don't think that something as modern as morals were used, they just didn't have any rights. Pitt the Younger tried to force emancipation, but King George refused as it would have forced him to recind his coronation oaths.
Sinec these issues are probably older than the USA is, it's hardly the most relevant comparison.
It was first and foremost a religious and therefore a moral circumstance. Moral theology is hardly a modern invention.
In fact the decision to obey one's conscience rather than the law was the dilemma that Thomas More felt he faced, although in his case, the issue was more theological truth than social teaching.
Quote:
And if you think the issues caused by discrimination against catholics are not relevant, try visiting a funny little place called Northern Ireland (or even Glasgow) -
In these places discrimination works both ways. Catholics discriminate against Protestants, so they are not really victims except in the sense that they are in the minority (slightly)
Quote:
or ask your Prince William who he is entitled to marry.
Any law that keeps my daughters from marrying in to that dysfunctional family is to be applauded.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
The determining factor is not the sex of the parents, but the quality of the parenting.
I think you're half right here, and on the important half no less. But as a parent, you know that children learn by emulation. How can a young man learn to be a man from two man-hating lesbians?
Yes, quality of parenting would be higher on my list of priorities then having a gender role model. And at the end of the day, I personally think 2 loving homosexuals in a committed relationship would probably do a fine job and the kid should be thankful for the adoption, period. But we're not arguing my views here. We're arguing whether the government has the right to step in and force a religion to change its dogma. I say no.
And I guarantee that if there's Islamic adoption agencies in the UK, they will get to opt-out. Nothing against muslims, that's a swipe at autocratic PC politicians that don't even wear a fig-leaf of governing on principle.
You know, it's funny. Whenever you and I start discussing this issue, it looks like we are far apart at the beginning, but as the discussion funnels down, we appear to be singing from the same songsheet.
I agree. Two man-hating lesbians would not be fit parents. Not because they are lesbians, but because they hate men simply for being men. "Lesbian" and "man-hating" are not an automatic mix. There are also plenty of heterosexual men who really hate women. And many of them marry women and have children, and raise sons who carry on the tradition of hating and disrespecting women. These men are also unfit parents. Hetero/homo has nothing to do with it.
And I also agree that the government has no place legislating what religious organizations should or should not do.
Like I said, if the Catholic agencies in question are not government funded, they should be able to refuse to do business with whomever they want.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
From your point of view, from a Catholic point of view it is wrong to allow Gays to adopt. Since both are moral stances the government should not interfere. It has and is therefore legislating for one morality and against the other.
No, from one point of view discriminating against people is wrong, from the Catholic point of view it's fine.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
It's a complex issue, and I need to hear more from the involved parties to be able to judge.
But I do find it remarkably ironic that in the United Kingdom, it wasn't that long ago that catholics required an Act of Parliament to force the general population to recognise their own rights and emancipation. For quite some while, they were the "morally aberrant" ones.
:no:
This is the part I didn't understand. Catholic church...in England? If the Catholic church wants to close its orphanages, can't the government just order it to turn them over to the presumably more dominant Anglican church and stick it to the Papists?
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
From the Cardinal's letter to Blair & Co:
Quote:
...Our agencies receive fees from local authorities directly linked to their adoption work. In addition they are supported generally by the Catholic Church community.
He makes an impassioned plea, and points out that RC Adoption Agencies arrange 34% of UK's toughest placements.
However, IMO, they're gonna have to give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's here. Either refuse the gov't coin and do as they like, or take the money and comply with law.
Anyone know what size population we are talking about here - how many prospective adoptees are there, on average?
-
Well said cegorach
Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
I am sorry, but giving adoption rights to gays is definetely not acceptable from catholic point of view. The same could be said about many other problems such as euthanasia (sp ?) - if in the future hospitals will be obliged to allow this kind of 'solution', private, catholic clinics included - the only thing left would be closing them as well.
The same for Orthodox Churches. I agree. :2thumbsup:
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
But to say "we won't let gays adopt any children" is just wrong.
From your point of view, from a Catholic point of view it is wrong to allow Gays to adopt. Since both are moral stances the government should not interfere. It has and is therefore legislating for one morality and against the other.
You are right, and I should have been more clear. I believe what the Catholics are doing is bigoted, plain and simple, but that is my opinion and nothing more. However, I support their right to do it as long as they are not funded by public $$.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Really? I don't know that that's true. Divorce rates are huge. Being married doesn't seem to guarantee stability.
I'd bet that break-ups among unmarried couples are higher and a partner is usually more likely to scarper than a husband. It has happened where I live and the wife is left litterally holding the baby.
I don't think so. I think it has more to do with how long the couple has been together, how old they are, whether they have children, whether they own property together, and many other factors.
Especially in countries where common law spouses are treated the same under the law as married couples, the piece of paper really makes little difference when it comes to couples staying together or not.
I know plenty of couples who have lived as common law spouses for as long as many married couples I know. In fact, I bet there are more of them walking around out there than you think. There is a couple I have known for ten years now, who were together ten years before I even met them. I only recently found out they're not actually married.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
That's not true. There is no evidence to support that. Children raised by same sex couples are just as well adjusted (or disfunctional) statistically as those raised by hetero couples.
It is well known that children need rolemodels in order to identify with others.
Agreed. But as with parenting, it's not the sex of the role models that matters, but the quality of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Without my father I would look to my Grandfather, without him I would look to other older men, but then I'm looking outside the family.
Maybe that's what you would do. But there is no evidence to suggest that even if you couldn't find a same sex role model you would grow up to be maladjusted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Besides, any study which showed that same-sex couples might be at all worse would be decried as homophobic and locked away. So it's not actually possible to get realistic statistics.
Translation: You searched, but couldn't find any evidence to support your claim, therefor it must be part of some grand gay conspiracy. As we all know, gays are the most powerful underground society in the world, and in the U.S. in particular. They engineered putting Bush in the White House in order to lull us all into a false sense of security. They also caused dozens of states recently to legislate against or constitutionally ban gay marriage. It's all part of their grand (or should I say "fabulous":cheerleader: ) plan.
Gimme a break.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
The determining factor is not the sex of the parents, but the quality of the parenting.
So having NO male role models would have no affect on a boy's developement.
There is a big difference between not growing up with a father and having no male role models. I have plenty of male role models and I grew up with a father.
But yes, if a boy were raised completely by women in a cloistered, female-only society, and was never exposed to other males at all while growing up, then he might have trouble relating to men later in life.
But I would imagine that simply going to school, playing a sport, making friends outside of the home, or taking part in any number of activities that other kids take part in should solve that problem.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Children need same-sex role models. A boy with two mothers will have trouble relating to other men, unless he finds a role model outside his family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen
I think you're half right here, and on the important half no less. But as a parent, you know that children learn by emulation. How can a young man learn to be a man from two man-hating lesbians?
The "he must learn to be a man" sentiment implies that there is more to being a man than being an adult male. The fact is that everyone learns to be an adult once they leave their parents and go out on their own. Some at earlier ages than others. Parents should help there children become mature, the children will be as masculine or as feminine as they are.
I think it's very telling that you never hear "But if she goes up with two gay men, how can she learn to be a woman?".
Some people just get so offended by the idea of a man not acting "manly".
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Interesting arguement. What about the staunchly Catholic child that gets placed with a gay couple because his shoddy agency let him down. Cuts both ways.
If you believe something is morally wrong then the law should not be able to force you to do it.
That's the problem isn't it ? Children don't make many moral judgements, society has to do it for them. I think the best way to set 'standards' is the democratic way, with the same standards used for placement of children by all agencies.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I think it's very telling that you never hear "But if she goes up with two gay men, how can she learn to be a woman?".
Some people just get so offended by the idea of a man not acting "manly".
Actually, I would make this argument. Two gay guys don't know the first thing about what it feels like to get your period the first time. How are they going to help a girl through that? Look, it may be very fashionable to claim that there are no developmental differences between adolescant males and females, but I don't buy it, and science is on my side.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
The "he must learn to be a man" sentiment implies that there is more to being a man than being an adult male. The fact is that everyone learns to be an adult once they leave their parents and go out on their own. Some at earlier ages than others. Parents should help there children become mature, the children will be as masculine or as feminine as they are.
I think it's very telling that you never hear "But if she goes up with two gay men, how can she learn to be a woman?".
Some people just get so offended by the idea of a man not acting "manly".
Are you saying that the surroundings, society and parents have no impact at all on the development of a kid? Are you kidding?:inquisitive: :help:
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen
Actually, I would make this argument. Two gay guys don't know the first thing about what it feels like to get your period the first time. How are they going to help a girl through that? Look, it may be very fashionable to claim that there are no developmental differences between adolescant males and females, but I don't buy it, and science is on my side.
Bit of a red herring (pun intended) there TH. You don't need to have had a period to comfort your daughter when she has her first one, or to explain to her what is happening with her body, or even to tell her how to use the various feminine products available to her. You just need to have read a book or two and be a good listener/hugger.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Are you saying that the surroundings, society and parents have no impact at all on the development of a kid? Are you kidding?:inquisitive: :help:
No? ~:confused:
Quote:
Actually, I would make this argument. Two gay guys don't know the first thing about what it feels like to get your period the first time. How are they going to help a girl through that? Look, it may be very fashionable to claim that there are no developmental differences between adolescant males and females, but I don't buy it, and science is on my side.
What do you mean by developmental? The period thing is pretty trivial.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
I would imagine two gay guys have about as good chances of having an idea about how to deal with the first period as a single father, you know. And both can always consult female relatives, friends and suchlike and/or appropriate official advisory sources if need be.
Red herrings get thrown to the lions. :rtwno:
As far as role models go, Daddy Dearest is not automatically the best one around (if he's even that, anyway). I know mine's mainly good for a cautionary example (as in, "don't become an ass like him"); the mother of my kid half-brother (who incidentally booted Dad out of her house even sooner than my mom did, and for very good resons) once told me *I* am the "reassuring reliable father-figure" role-model for the little guy...
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
I will say one thing on the matter. If people at my school discovered I had 2 gay male parents (They probaly wouldnt care about female) they would ridicule me beyond belief. The jokes wouldnt stop. People would describe me instead of "The tall skinny fellow" as the "Guy that has 2 gay parents".
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
It was first and foremost a religious and therefore a moral circumstance. Moral theology is hardly a modern invention.
Sorry I do not think that something that what is religious is automatically moral.
A set of ideas is not made moral by tacking the word religion to it.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen
Actually, I would make this argument. Two gay guys don't know the first thing about what it feels like to get your period the first time. How are they going to help a girl through that? Look, it may be very fashionable to claim that there are no developmental differences between adolescant males and females, but I don't buy it, and science is on my side.
What exactly is science saying on this issue?
I have heard that females develop quicker when there are more males around. So it could be argued that having two male parents will assist the child to become functionally a women. If at least one of them is the sterotypical effeminate gay then at least he could relate to her better along shopping terms, gossip etc. Also when it comes to Miss 16 year old... imagine the test the new boyfriend has to go through... two Dads sitting on the porch cleaning their shotguns and one of them in leather riding chaps. :laugh4:
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
. Also when it comes to Miss 16 year old... imagine the test the new boyfriend has to go through... two Dads sitting on the porch cleaning their shotguns and one of them in leather riding chaps. :laugh4:
I dont know what your talking about. Please explain.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Make that patent leather a**less chaps to really get the young man's attention.~:wacko:
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
I dunno, I think that looking at me and my brother, for instance, tells a decent story. I grew up and my dad was there, my brother (much younger than me) grew up and the old man was gone. Now, me and my brother developed just fine, and we're incredibly similar in alot of ways, but he has more of a temper on him, but at the same time I'd say he was easily more mature than me.
So I think that the influence of a father can have an effect but it is not automatically a negative one, as much as it is not automatically a positive one.
It's just a different one, the same as everything else in life.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
You are right, and I should have been more clear. I believe what the Catholics are doing is bigoted, plain and simple, but that is my opinion and nothing more. However, I support their right to do it as long as they are not funded by public $$.
We are then in total agreement on how the law should be applied.
Quote:
I don't think so. I think it has more to do with how long the couple has been together, how old they are, whether they have children, whether they own property together, and many other factors.
I'm speaking from my own experience, but, as Banquo has pointed out, I live in Devon. Even if I'm not "local."
Quote:
I know plenty of couples who have lived as common law spouses for as long as many married couples I know. In fact, I bet there are more of them walking around out there than you think. There is a couple I have known for ten years now, who were together ten years before I even met them. I only recently found out they're not actually married.
I admit I know some also, I know many more, with children, who have split up.
Quote:
Agreed. But as with parenting, it's not the sex of the role models that matters, but the quality of them.
Dissagree, if you want to be able to relate to men in general you need a male role model. My father is an excellent example of manly virtue, honour etc. but he's pretty bad at comunicating, so I defaulted to my mother and being stuck out on a farm I developed without a close role-model, except for my grandfather who I saw infrequently. As a result when I did go out into the world beyond primary school I was dysfunctional and unable to relate to men very well. Not only did this mean I was often mocked it left me with few friends and very low self esteem.
I finally found my male role-models when I joined the school's cadet detachment and I was fortunate that some of them took me under their wing. A year of that got my functioning and another five years left me fairly well adjusted, but only externally. I empathise with the female view of men but not the male view of women.
As a result nearly all my close friends are women, or men similarly mal-adjusted.
Quote:
Maybe that's what you would do. But there is no evidence to suggest that even if you couldn't find a same sex role model you would grow up to be maladjusted.
See above.
Quote:
Translation: You searched, but couldn't find any evidence to support your claim, therefor it must be part of some grand gay conspiracy. As we all know, gays are the most powerful underground society in the world, and in the U.S. in particular. They engineered putting Bush in the White House in order to lull us all into a false sense of security. They also caused dozens of states recently to legislate against or constitutionally ban gay marriage. It's all part of their grand (or should I say "fabulous":cheerleader: ) plan.
Gimme a break.
No, all I'm saying is that no one will produce a fair test because they don't want the results to suggest same-sex parenting is in any way negative. It's not even concious. It's just like no one ever doing a serious survey of racial intelligence, they might find out that black people are less intelligent, worse they might be more intelligent and then the liberals would actually have to look at the reasons why crime is generally higher in black areas.
[qutoe]There is a big difference between not growing up with a father and having no male role models. I have plenty of male role models and I grew up with a father.[/quote]
Bully for you.
Quote:
But yes, if a boy were raised completely by women in a cloistered, female-only society, and was never exposed to other males at all while growing up, then he might have trouble relating to men later in life.
I present myself as exibit A.
Quote:
But I would imagine that simply going to school, playing a sport, making friends outside of the home, or taking part in any number of activities that other kids take part in should solve that problem.
Well I went to school and my early disadvantage meant I couldn't mix, so I didn't pick it up. No starting point.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
There is so much to this issue, that until you really know the ins and outs (pretty funny huh?) of it all, then its hard to work it all out, as your guess based on your own experiences.
Firstly i live in the part of sydney with more lesbians per captia in australia. Having seen some same sex female couples with children (mostly girls), that it melts my heart to see how many of them are great parents, and just wonderful with the kids. even my most retarded, backwards and homophobic (read shire) mates are taken back by just how good they are together...
The other point, is leave your stereotypes at home, i know gay guys that make me @ 105 KG 197cm /235lbs and 6"4' look like a pansy. i couldn't picture more masculine looking guys. Same can be said for lesbians, my next door neighbors are gorgeous girls, long hair just like any other straight girl, except they are gay, and have been together since high school (i think they are like 26ish), if they had kids or adopted, i think it would be awesome.
The idea that guys can't help or talk to a girl when she is developing is complete rubbish. My mate, has a niece, when she had her first period, he threw her a party and made it in to a big deal, in a good way, he was also their to shop with her and make sure she knew what was going on, i don't think a women could of handled it better...
Also most of the gay people around my house have a great big mix of friends that include both sexes both gay and straight, so there is plenty of role models, also the group take a role in helping out with the kids, i.e the guys with take the little boy out to the football or play cricket with him...
men and women don't make good parents, good people that are good with kids and understanding, that make time to make sure the kid is looked after make good parent.
Quote:
The Catholic Church's agencies are said to handle 4%, or about 200, of all adoptions a year. However they handle about a third of those children judged difficult to place.
4% = 200
1% = 50
100% = 5000
Quote:
But Peter Smith, the Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff, said it cost agencies about £20,000 to select and train each family to adopt.
The government then repaid the money if a local authority agreed to a couple's suitability.
so the church isn't footing the bill to find people to adopt the kids, the government is. Which would mean, the church fund it themselves or play nice. I think the churches should get the same treatment as everyone else, and making exceptions for such a small minority of the total adoptions (4%) is insane.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
I should point out that the government is not legislating on what a religious denomination may or may not do, but on what adoption agencies may or may not do.
If the Catholic church wishes to run adoption agencies then, in the event of these new ideas becoming law, they must abide by them or cease to run those agencies. They themselves have said as much, and it is both right and proper.
The State rules the Church here, not the other way around. The former sets the laws and the latter must obey or change (in the past, of course, they have also fought). Any exemption for Catholic agencies will, in my view, reverse this order in a way which leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Dissagree, if you want to be able to relate to men in general you need a male role model. My father is an excellent example of manly virtue, honour etc. but he's pretty bad at comunicating, so I defaulted to my mother and being stuck out on a farm I developed without a close role-model, except for my grandfather who I saw infrequently. As a result when I did go out into the world beyond primary school I was dysfunctional and unable to relate to men very well. Not only did this mean I was often mocked it left me with few friends and very low self esteem.
You're wrong on two levels Ironwall. First you're oversimplifying the impact of external influences on your character. You cannot know with certainty what influence formed what feature, you're not an external overseer of what has happened and is happening in your life, so linking cause and effect in the manner that you just did is not correct. You can, however, assume as much as you want. Now about those assumptions, I suspect you really don't want to imply that "manly" virtues come from man only and viceversa, that will mean that the sexual transformation from hetero to homo has no profound bearing on the subjects, wich is ridiculous. On the other hand I really don't believe you are saying that honour is a men virtue only and that of a fluent communicator pertains to the female gamma. You're also forgetting about genes, wich determines our tendencies up to a certain point.
About a general picture on the subject of adoption there's only a type of study wich serves a generic purpose: an stadistical study. If you do a quick search you'll find a lot of studies saying that there's no "bad" influence and some saying there is, other pointing that there's no special influence. However I've found the latter the most accurate. That's if we want the facts.
Beyond the facts, and on the moral ground, this subject is far more simplier if we assume some premises. First we've to assume that being homosexual is not bad, and second we've to assume that everyone is entitled to his choice. Now even if homosexual parenting had any special influence on the development of children, this developments should be treated separately. So we cannot jugde solely on the existence of special influences, these influence have to be bad on their own and have to be unavoidable. For example: if this kind of parenting prooved to make children more likely to choose same sex partners, then, on the same logic, we cannot say that this is a bad influence, in spite of it being an special one.
Quote:
No, all I'm saying is that no one will produce a fair test because they don't want the results to suggest same-sex parenting is in any way negative. It's not even concious. It's just like no one ever doing a serious survey of racial intelligence, they might find out that black people are less intelligent, worse they might be more intelligent and then the liberals would actually have to look at the reasons why crime is generally higher in black areas.
Well perhaps you'll be surprised by the objectivity of scientists. ~;)
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
I will say one thing on the matter. If people at my school discovered I had 2 gay male parents (They probaly wouldnt care about female) they would ridicule me beyond belief. The jokes wouldnt stop. People would describe me instead of "The tall skinny fellow" as the "Guy that has 2 gay parents".
So if I'm a bigoted bullying bastard and I choose to pick this lil' gay boy in school for whatever crap excuse I make up (gay parents! gay boy! he smells! he's just an annoying smarty pants!), society punishes the victim and takes his rights away.
Awesome.
-
Re: Catholics deny gays right to adopt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
From the Cardinal's
letter to Blair & Co:
He makes an impassioned plea, and points out that RC Adoption Agencies arrange 34% of UK's toughest placements.
However, IMO, they're gonna have to give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's here. Either refuse the gov't coin and do as they like, or take the money and comply with law.
Anyone know what size population we are talking about here - how many prospective adoptees are there, on average?
100% agree, the private institution that takes money from the government must abide by the laws and regulations of that government. The Catholic Church must either comply or refuse all government assistance.
