Catholics deny gays right to adopt.

This one has all the ingredients of a backroom topic. Religion, gays, liberal legislation........

Quote:

---

Catholic threat on gay rights law
The head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has said adoption agencies will close if they cannot opt out of new gay rights laws.

---

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6289301.stm

Quote:

---

Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, a devout Catholic, was reported at the weekend to be considering an opt-out which would cover Catholic adoption agencies.

The Equality Act, which has already been delayed once, but is now due to come into effect in England, Wales and Scotland in April, outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

---

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:

it sounds like it is a Catholic adoption agency, doesn’t that make it “private” allowing them to run by their own rules, like the way the boy scouts don’t allow gays? Could an adoption agency without a catholic affiliation be used if gays wanted to adopt?

It is private in the sense that it isn't government run. I have to say though what has that got to do with it? Private or not, they should obey the law.

I wasn't aware that the boy scout movement was homophobic, indeed I get the distinct impression that they are the opposite. :laugh4:

The problem is that the Catholic adoption agencies used to refer gays to other agencies but now, because of the new law, they will not be able to discriminate. They will have to process any applicants on merit alone, not on some religious based morality.

If everyone has to make it possible, closing the agencies is the only option.

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.

It's good to see you so staunchly defending one of Blairs many great incentives to modernise the UK, InsaneApache. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I wasn't aware that the boy scout movement was homophobic, indeed I get the distinct impression that they are the opposite. :laugh4:

---

Yes, exactly! Also, I thought many priests were quite into young boys as well?

I say we forbid Catholics from adopting. God forbid some poor adoption child should turn out to be homosexual, ending up being raised in a homophobic environment. :no:

I wonder what would offend the Catholic Church the most: allowing gays to adopt babies, or aborting the babies instead. :inquisitive:

I believe the sanctity of life is more important than the issue of homosexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

I believe the sanctity of life is more important than the issue of homosexuality.

---

You believe it, I believe it, most people believe it. But does the bureaucratic-political entity known as the Catholic Church support that view?

Very simple:

If an adoption agency is run and financed 100% by the Catholic Church, then the agency should be able to refuse adoption to gays.

But if an adoption agency receives any government money, then it should not be able to refuse adoption rights to gays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Very simple:

If an adoption agency is run and financed 100% by the Catholic Church, then the agency should be able to refuse adoption to gays.

But if an adoption agency receives any government money, then it should not be able to refuse adoption rights to gays.

---

I agree. If they take money from the state - they must abide by the state's regulations.

And.... in the blue corner, we have the people who have the legal right to have their religious beliefs respected.

In the red corner we have people who have the legal right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of their sexuality.

Refereeing, we have the government that thought everyone could all get along in one happy "big tent" if only, yunno, we could all be nice to each other for a change, and stuff.

Ding ding, round one.

This is what happens if you get your political philosophy from the sleeve notes of Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

And.... in the blue corner, we have the people who have the legal right to have their religious beliefs respected.

In the red corner we have people who have the legal right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of their sexuality.

---

And in the corner yet to be born, the child who will have 2 mums or 2 dads. Perhaps this child should have a right to a mother or a father. It could also affect the child in later life, bullying and such. There are some other things, but i can't be bothered to type anymore...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Very simple:

If an adoption agency is run and financed 100% by the Catholic Church, then the agency should be able to refuse adoption to gays.

But if an adoption agency receives any government money, then it should not be able to refuse adoption rights to gays.

---

I also agree here.
If the gays don't get their children from one private agency, they can always go to another agency or even found their own one and give no babies to catholics there.:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

It is private in the sense that it isn't government run. I have to say though what has that got to do with it? Private or not, they should obey the law.

---

So if the government passed a law insisting that anyone performing marriagies must perform them on same-sex couples, the Catholic Church (and the Church of England for that matter, noticed that they were mentioned in the article, but you're targeting Rome, not Canterbury) must perform them as well? It's your argument that churches are subject to the whims of the local council? Interesting.

Quote:

---

The problem is that the Catholic adoption agencies used to refer gays to other agencies but now, because of the new law, they will not be able to discriminate. They will have to process any applicants on merit alone, not on some religious based morality.

---

Wrong. As said in the article, they won't adopt to gays, they'll close their adoption agencies. See, when you try to force somebody to do something against their beliefs, they'll just remove themselves from the situation altogether.

This happens over here all the time. Every now and then, some crusading Maoist assembly will pass a law attempting to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. If they cannot fight it legally, the Church usually winds up closing the Obestetrics unit, problem solved. Of course, poor women now cannot always get checkups and deliveries, but the Stalinists have once again saved the day... they've made certain the Catholics aren't refusing to perform abortions in their obstetrics unit anymore.

I thought you Leftys loved that catch-phrase "You cannot legislate morality". Isnt' that exactly what this so-called "Equality Act" does?

Quote:

---

I thought you Leftys loved that catch-phrase "You cannot legislate morality". Isnt' that exactly what this so-called "Equality Act" does?

---

Give that man a cigar. 40 years after the first race relations act, we have a race storm on national telly. 35 years after the equal pay act women's average take home pay is still 75% of so of mens.

Hmm, you know what? Maybe more laws aren't the answer...:idea2:

Still, it all keeps me in business :yes:

My mom is very staunchly Catholic, my little brother is very gay... somehow the love of a mother overrides the immorality of being homosexual(don't take this as my personal POV), as they are the best of friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen

So if the government passed a law insisting that anyone performing marriagies must perform them on same-sex couples, the Catholic Church (and the Church of England for that matter, noticed that they were mentioned in the article, but you're targeting Rome, not Canterbury) must perform them as well? It's your argument that churches are subject to the whims of the local council? Interesting.

Wrong. As said in the article, they won't adopt to gays, they'll close their adoption agencies. See, when you try to force somebody to do something against their beliefs, they'll just remove themselves from the situation altogether.

This happens over here all the time. Every now and then, some crusading Maoist assembly will pass a law attempting to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. If they cannot fight it legally, the Church usually winds up closing the Obestetrics unit, problem solved. Of course, poor women now cannot always get checkups and deliveries, but the Stalinists have once again saved the day... they've made certain the Catholics aren't refusing to perform abortions in their obstetrics unit anymore.

I thought you Leftys loved that catch-phrase "You cannot legislate morality". Isnt' that exactly what this so-called "Equality Act" does?

---

It skirts the edge of it, to be sure, but I don't believe it's legislating morality. It's actually legislating against imposing Catholic morality, as the law says that the Catholics must process the adoptions regardless of what their institutional morality dictates. I don't believe equality to be a moral issue. It's the Catholics who are trying to say that some are "less equal" than others, based on Catholic morality...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm

And in the corner yet to be born, the child who will have 2 mums or 2 dads. Perhaps this child should have a right to a mother or a father. It could also affect the child in later life, bullying and such. There are some other things, but i can't be bothered to type anymore...

---

Good, because I couldn't be bothered to read anymore.

The old "it's unfare to the child because the rest of us are cruel bigots who will taunt him" argument is utter tripe.

And two moms or two dads raising a child in a loving home beats the hell out of a single parent doing it every day of the week and twice on Sunday. But there is no law banning single parenthood for the "protection" of the child, now, is there?

But that's OT for this thread.

If these Catholic agancies are receiving gov't $$, then they should bite the bullet and process the adoptions.

If the law is saying they have to do it whether they are publicly funded or not, then the law is wrong.

Meh, Catholics (as an organisation) only seem to care about children when they can benefit from them. My next-door neighbour has a nun as an aunt who worked in a orphanage. For christmas and other holidays she often got present that were actually meant for the orphans.

All said and done, I might still prefer the the Mother Church to all those little protestant sects

EDIT: as for it's their right to do as they please, I disagree, it's about the children and they can hardly chose what adoption agency they winded up with. Besides, if there was an adoption agency that only gave kids to white people we'd all be outraged. Marriages and abortions are another issue, since the other involved parties actually have a choice of going somewhere else. Adults can go to any clinic, can get married by any official, kids can't change their adoption agency.

I'm still awaiting my reply for initiation into the Anti Semitic Jewish Community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Good, because I couldn't be bothered to read anymore.

The old "it's unfare to the child because the rest of us are cruel bigots who will taunt him" argument is utter tripe.

And two moms or two dads raising a child in a loving home beats the hell out of a single parent doing it every day of the week and twice on Sunday. But there is no law banning single parenthood for the "protection" of the child, now, is there?

But that's OT for this thread.

If these Catholic agancies are receiving gov't $$, then they should bite the bullet and process the adoptions.

If the law is saying they have to do it whether they are publicly funded or not, then the law is wrong.

---

I didn't make that argument, nor would I have. I think you need to read a little more closely, senor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen

I thought you Leftys loved that catch-phrase "You cannot legislate morality". Isnt' that exactly what this so-called "Equality Act" does?

---

ROFL moi a lefty? :laugh4: Wait until JAG and Idaho hear about this.......It'll ruin their week. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen

I didn't make that argument, nor would I have. I think you need to read a little more closely, senor.

---

Mea culpa. Sorry, my friend. Forgot to change the name in the quote.

Fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Meh, Catholics (as an organisation) only seem to care about children when they can benefit from them. My next-door neighbour has a nun as an aunt who worked in a orphanage. For christmas and other holidays she often got present that were actually meant for the orphans.

All said and done, I might still prefer the the Mother Church to all those little protestant sects

EDIT: as for it's their right to do as they please, I disagree, it's about the children and they can hardly chose what adoption agency they winded up with. Besides, if there was an adoption agency that only gave kids to white people we'd all be outraged. Marriages and abortions are another issue, since the other involved parties actually have a choice of going somewhere else. Adults can go to any clinic, can get married by any official, kids can't change their adoption agency.

---

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. I personally believe only married couples should adopt, because an unmarried couple is more likely to break up and a single parent will have a great deal of trouble.

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 InsaneApache

ROFL moi a lefty? :laugh4: Wait until JAG and Idaho hear about this.......It'll ruin their week. :yes:

---

I thought you'd get a hoot out of that. :yes:

Fiscally, certainly not. Matters of foreign policy, no. But when you start advocating for passing laws that outlaw religious beliefs in the name of PC notions, well, if the shoe fits....~:pat:

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.

---

I don't know many "staunchly Catholic" infants, so it's probably not an issue at that age. For children of an age where they have formed such advanced religious views, I would think the agency could on a case-by-case basis simply offer a different adoptive parent/child match up, in order to accommodate the views of both parties.

But to say "we won't let gays adopt any children" is just wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

If you believe something is morally wrong then the law should not be able to force you to do it. I personally believe only married couples should adopt, because an unmarried couple is more likely to break up and a single parent will have a great deal of trouble.

---

Really? I don't know that that's true. Divorce rates are huge. Being married doesn't seem to guarantee stability.

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.

---

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.

The determining factor is not the sex of the parents, but the quality of the parenting.

Edit: typo

Kelly is an idiot. Isn't she the Opius Dei member?

And as we all know from the Di Vinci Code, they killed Jesus's babies or something.

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 forgot to add that Opus Dei members drink blood and controll world's economy. :laugh4:


BTW It reminds me some guys from early XXth century:inquisitive:

I'm a firm believer in gay rights, and believe that gay couples can make excellent parents. However, I do not believe it is the government's place to force a religion to contradict its own moral principles. Assuming these agencies are entirely funded by Catholic money, it is a free charity service provided to the community. It is not something the church is obligated to do, and should probably be treated with some level of appreciation. Telling them they must do something they consider wrong in the eyes of God will not reform their system or beliefs, but rather shut down their free service, which is a shame.

Ajax

Tom "Don C" Hagen has the right of it.

Forced to choose between obeying a civil law and ignoring their own beliefs, most Catholic agencies would opt out of an activity.

These Catholic adoption agencies have no right to disregard a duly promulgated law of the land. Nor can that same government force them to continue their activities in a fashion that runs against their own beliefs.

Result: an increase in business for non-Catholic adoption agencies. Also, I would suspect, an increase in cost to the consumer -- though I have no hard data to back up that last statement.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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:

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.

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".

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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...

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".

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.

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:

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.

Make that patent leather a**less chaps to really get the young man's attention.~:wacko:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. ~;)

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

---

Either way, it'll be the children who are hurt by this- gotta love that. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Either way, it'll be the children who are hurt by this- gotta love that. :shame:

---

Yes indeed its always the children that suffer in these instance. Having stated that a private institution that takes money from the government has to abide by the rules regarding that money.

For instance State funded Universities have to allow ROTC and Military Recruiters onto their campus for the exact same reason. The Federal government provides them money. Same thing happened at the Military Academies back in the late 1970's in regards to women. To include several of the private ones - why because they really weren't private because they were given money by the Federal Government for the ROTC programs contained within the school. (To include military officers and NCOs for instructors.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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.

---

I thought give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's applied not only to obeying the tax laws of the land, but all laws of the land.

I still don't see how even if they are a private company that they could operate outside the law of the land. It's not like a private business can shoot their employees because they don't get any government money.

Surely if the law of the land said 'no abortions'a private clinic would have to obey that too?

If they close the adoption centers then they are the ones acting as dogs in the manger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

---

That's not what I meant. Religions deal with morals - they attempt to provide moral frameworks. Whether one agrees with these moral ideas or accept the religion provides legitimacy is another matter. But the conflict between religions is often based on different views on what is moral.

Sorry for not being clear. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I still don't see how even if they are a private company that they could operate outside the law of the land. It's not like a private business can shoot their employees because they don't get any government money.

Surely if the law of the land said 'no abortions'a private clinic would have to obey that too?

---

That's an excellent point in the context. If the Church got her way on outlawing abortion, would she be keen on private exemptions to the law on the basis of personal conviction or conscience?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

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'm the opposite to that. Mainly in contact with my father and not having much to do with my mother, who is a very quiet disciplined woman that hardly ever leaves the house and has been like this pretty much all her life. Because of this I find it difficult to relate to women, I dislike feminine things, I hate jewellery, shopping and dress rather scruffily. My conversation, offline, is abrupt, minimal and no nonsense. My cousins are totally different. They were mainly around their mother growing up, their father not being around much due to working long hours, spending a lot of time in the pub and not being very conversational, nor engaging in any activities with them. As a result they speak in a somewhat more feminine manner (I don't mean camp, but it is perceptible), they are also much more "chatty" a trait that I find irritating, curious and gossipy. None of them are, AFAIK, gay though so I don't believe it has any bearing whatsoever on their sexuality. I view this as some indication of the theory that the gender of a parent influencing a child's development.

Back to the gay adoptions: Bad parents come in all forms. There are single parents that do a good job and male and female parents that do a terrible job. In some cases the single parentage is not a choice but a turn of fate, i.e. abandonment or death. Another valid point that many here have dismissed is the outside perception, which is always important in every aspect of life, and the very real possibility of bullying. Personally I would not like to be in the position of having two gay dads, plain and simple. Bullying is bad enough in schools in the UK without adding to the problem. Unfortunately for kids perceptions do count a lot, more so than in the adult world. The law of the playground is very different to the law. If having the wrong brand of trainers can get you verbally abused, then I'm sure that having homosexual parents could get you beaten up. I've no doubt that the loony left would advocate producing booklets to promote tolerance - at the expense of the taxpayer - to explain to the little dears that a child with gay parents should not be called "botty boy" and get beaten up, shunned and verbally abused on a daily basis, and this would work of course, like asbos work...... too many laws in this country. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Even if they do refuse government, money, they'll still be breaking the law. This isn't about them having to follow governmental policy in order to receive their funding, it's about them having to comply with our new law which states you can't discriminate in the provision of goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

---

This only applies if there is only one true sense of morality, which is obviously false. Granted, you might have meant, and it is safe to assume, that you meant that it isn't 'moral to you' or 'moral in your opinion', but that point is also moot since you're not the one on trial here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

... it's about them having to comply with our new law which states you can't discriminate in the provision of goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

---

Assuming the new law states exactly that, I see your point, and cannot disagree.

Does this, in your opinion, imply or predict, that faith-based adoption agencies will opt-out of providing those services - leading to the gov't having to assume them, to fill the gap?

Or will there just be more un-adopted orphans languishing in (where? orphanages? foster families?)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

Even if they do refuse government, money, they'll still be breaking the law. This isn't about them having to follow governmental policy in order to receive their funding, it's about them having to comply with our new law which states you can't discriminate in the provision of goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

---

Doesn't that mean that your government has just mandated gay marriage too? Surely marriage rites are a service of the Church. :book:

Does

Quote:

---

this, in your opinion, imply or predict, that faith-based adoption agencies will opt-out of providing those services - leading to the gov't having to assume them, to fill the gap?

---

Possibly. In breaking news, the Church of England seems to have discovered that it does believe in something, and has now joined the catholics.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...563054,00.html

How they square this sentiment, that the government is "seeking, quite properly, better to defend the rights of a particular group not to be discriminated against" with the demand to be allowed, err, to discriminate against that group, I don't quite know. I also felt that "It is vitally important that the interests of vulnerable children are not relegated to suit any political interest" was a curious claim seeing as it apparently is all right that the interests of vulnerable children are relegated to suit a religious interest?

But then logic isn't the faith based community's strongest suit.

They seem to me to be on stronger ground to say that matters of conscience cannot be the subject of legislation, although we would just have to hope that no one feels that, say, preventing inter-race marriages is a matter of conscience. (Yeah yeah, I know, sounds ridiculous. Tell it to the victim of an honour killing)

On reflection, where this one went wrong was by allowing anyone other than the adoptive child to have rights in these cases. One simple principle; that the decisions must be made in the best interests of the child, and absolutely everyone else can go hang, and the debate would go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

---

:yes:

I have not been impressed by the actions of the CoE or the Catholic Church on this, if they want to argue over the matter fine, but using children in this way isnt all that good :shame:

Quote:

---

Possibly. In breaking news, the Church of England seems to have discovered that it does believe in something, and has now joined the catholics.

---

:laugh:

--> I dont think gay parents would be worse than any others, many mixed parents are incopetant, as are single sparents etc.. i dont belive the gender of parents would affect a child development, there are many examples of single parents of both gender bringng up socially well-rounded kids. The problem for me would be the playground atmosphere, interestingly there was recently a stabbing of an apparently "gay" pupil at my school recently (fairly low key) but if this indicates the current attitudes then gay parents would perhaps not be such a good idea... i dont think "not" allowing gay couples is right, but perhaps more time is needed to let societies attitudes change is needed... :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

How they square this sentiment, that the government is "seeking, quite properly, better to defend the rights of a particular group not to be discriminated against" with the demand to be allowed, err, to discriminate against that group, I don't quite know. I also felt that "It is vitally important that the interests of vulnerable children are not relegated to suit any political interest" was a curious claim seeing as it apparently is all right that the interests of vulnerable children are relegated to suit a religious interest?

---

An interesting spin to put on the situation. The Catholic Church does not gain or lose by running adoption agencies except, perhaps in the sense that it gives them an opportunity to serve those in need which is what they ought to be doing. If the interests of vulnerable children are harmed, it won't be to serve a religious interest, more a religious sensibility.

Quote:

---

But then logic isn't the faith based community's strongest suit.

---

If anything the Catholic church is logical to a fault, and this is an example of extreme logic.

Premise 1: Homosexual acts are immoral
Premise 2: Giving support to immorallity is immoral too.
Premise 3: Allowing a homosexual couple to adopt supports their relationship

Conclusion: Supporting adoption by a homosexual couple is immoral.

Don't confuse lack of logic with basing your original premises on things other than scientific evidence.

It is perfectly logical. In fact it would be better if the Church had an emotional response to the issue and said "forget the logic of the situation - these children need care so lets just comply with the law and continue to place difficult children."

Quote:

---

They seem to me to be on stronger ground to say that matters of conscience cannot be the subject of legislation, although we would just have to hope that no one feels that, say, preventing inter-race marriages is a matter of conscience. (Yeah yeah, I know, sounds ridiculous. Tell it to the victim of an honour killing)

---

It is perfectly acceptable for a state to legislate to prevent citizens from doing something that the community considers unacceptable. It is harder to justify forcing people to do something in order to fit in with the community values. Therefore the Catholic church can be told not to discriminate against homosexual couples in placing children for adoption, but they can't be forced to run adoption agencies. To use the inter-race marriage analogy you can pass a law to stop people disrupting inter race marriage, but you can't force them to attend an inter-race ceremony if they don't want to.

One thing I am trying to understand is why, when this Act was passed almost 12 months ago, there is still a discussion about changing it. I have no legal training at all, but I did find the text of the Equality Act 2006 here:

Equality Act 2006

I did not read the whole thing, but I did scroll down to find the bit that referred to sexual orientation. It does not say anything specific, just:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about discrimination or harassment on grounds of sexual orientation."
In other words, the Secretary of State can say the law is whatever he wants it to be at any time. No wonder people are seeing this as a live issue still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

I have not been impressed by the actions of the CoE or the Catholic Church on this, if they want to argue over the matter fine, but using children in this way isnt all that good

---

How can you argue about the adoption of children without involving the children. The statement that children are being "used" is your interpretation of the motives of those involved.

Quote:

---

I dont think gay parents would be worse than any others, many mixed parents are incopetant, as are single sparents etc.. i dont belive the gender of parents would affect a child development, there are many examples of single parents of both gender bringng up socially well-rounded kids. The problem for me would be the playground atmosphere, interestingly there was recently a stabbing of an apparently "gay" pupil at my school recently (fairly low key) but if this indicates the current attitudes then gay parents would perhaps not be such a good idea... i dont think "not" allowing gay couples is right, but perhaps more time is needed to let societies attitudes change is needed...

---

The Catholic church is not making any statement about whether same-sex couples make good parents or not, neither is it saying that they should not be allowed to adopt. It is just saying that they do not want place children with gay couples. If a gay couple approach a Catholic adoption agency, they don't say "be off gay scum" they say "I am sorry. We don't place children with same-sex couples, but here is a list of agencies that do." Many people would find this offensive, but it is not the same as denying same sex couples the right to adopt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

The statement that children are being "used" is your interpretation of the motives of those involved.

---

:yes:

Does your belief that Catholic clergy are involved in some sort of plot which will harm children betray your own prejudices at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Does your belief that Catholic clergy are involved in some sort of plot which will harm children betray your own prejudices at all?

---

:yes: --> i think i am generally prejudice against religious intervention in such things, although not necessarily against the church itself, (i have only read fairly one-sided media stuff on this)

Quote:

---

it is not the same as denying same sex couples the right to adopt.

---

I think it is, but i have nothing against it, at this time, my annoyance is with the church for there methods of influencing the government (i'v seen it refferred too as a sort of blackmail)

:2thumbsup:

sorry for any lack of clarity... :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I still don't see how even if they are a private company that they could operate outside the law of the land. It's not like a private business can shoot their employees because they don't get any government money.

Surely if the law of the land said 'no abortions'a private clinic would have to obey that too?

---

Quite so. If the Catholic dioceses in question were to continue operating adoption agencies in a manner that contravened the law of the land, they would clearly be in the wrong. Dislike for/belief in the immorality of a given law does not grant you the right to ignore it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

If they close the adoption centers then they are the ones acting as dogs in the manger.

---

No, they are responding in the only legal means possible that allows them to obey the law without contravening their moral stance.

Were an ice cream shop owner in Brighton to refuse to serve any person who was Maltese simply because he viewed anyone from Malta as being degenerates and undesirables, the law would view such a policy as discriminatory. The court would likely order the owner to desist such a policy and would allow anyone so discriminated against to bring suit against the owner for appropriate damages. Rather than serve Maltese, the owner chooses to close his business -- and this is within his rights.

The government can legitimately promulgate laws governing adoption practice and procedures. It can affirm the right/create law to allow same sex marriage. It can force an organization that recieves government funding to adhere to government policies in order to continue receiving said funding. It cannot force someone to continue in business when they no longer wish to do so -- not without being a totalitarian state.

"Catholics deny gays right to adopt"
Man, well, DUH!!!!
IN other news, still no babies have been concived throught the rectum....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

"Catholics deny gays right to adopt"
Man, well, DUH!!!!
IN other news, still no babies have been concived throught the rectum....

---

But I know of one that was born that way...

~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

:yes: --> i think i am generally prejudice against religious intervention in such things, although not necessarily against the church itself, (i have only read fairly one-sided media stuff on this)



I think it is, but i have nothing against it, at this time, my annoyance is with the church for there methods of influencing the government (i'v seen it refferred too as a sort of blackmail)

:2thumbsup:

sorry for any lack of clarity... :2thumbsup:

---

I think it is unfair to describe this as "intervention" since the Catholic Church is already running the adoption agencies. In the same way, the use of the word "blackmail" is unjust. The actions are entirely consistent with Catholic belief and could have been predicted by those drawing up the legislation. It is fine to criticise beliefs, but if you accept people right to hold beliefs, you can't criticise them for acting on them. Also if they are well published, suggestions that they are being used to influence government, rather than genuinely held, are difficult to sustain.