Catholics deny gays right to adopt.

[InsaneApache]

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

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

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.

[yesdachi]

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?

[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.

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

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.

[cegorach]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

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

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.

[drone]

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

[King Henry V]

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

[drone]

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?

[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.

[Redleg]

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.

[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.

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.

[Duke Malcolm]

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...

[Husar]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

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?

[English assassin]

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...

Still, it all keeps me in business

[Samurai Waki]

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.

[Goofball]

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...

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.

[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.

[Samurai Waki]

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

[Don Corleone]

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.

[InsaneApache]

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? Wait until JAG and Idaho hear about this.......It'll ruin their week.

[Goofball]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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

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

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....

[Goofball]

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.

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.

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

[BDC]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[cegorach]

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


BTW It reminds me some guys from early XXth century

[ajaxfetish]

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.