Catholics deny gays right to adopt.

[Xiahou]

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.

[Redleg]

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

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.)

[Papewaio]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

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?

[caravel]

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.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

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.

[GoreBag]

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.

[KukriKhan]

... 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?)?

[The Black Ship]

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.

[English assassin]

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?

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.

[Scurvy]

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.

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

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

--> 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...

[Duke of Gloucester]

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.

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."

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.

[Duke of Gloucester]

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.

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.

[Scurvy]

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

[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?

[Scurvy]

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

--> 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)

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)



sorry for any lack of clarity...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

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.

[Devastatin Dave]

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

[Goofball]

"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...

[Duke of Gloucester]

--> 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)



sorry for any lack of clarity...

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.

[Rameusb5]

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.

Yes.


If the Catholic church sells milk and happens to believe that pasturization isn't moral, and the government passes a law that says that all milk being sold in the country must be pasturized (for the public good), it's clear that the Catholic church should be pasturizing their milk. (or going home).

How you feel about pasturization has nothing to do with it. It's to the public's benefit. I have alway been disturbed by the church's selective charity.


Discrimination is wrong, no matter how you want to argue it. A lot of people will defend discrimination if they happen to dislike what's being discriminated against, but any discrimination against themselves is somehow automatically bad.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Yes.


If the Catholic church sells milk and happens to believe that pasturization isn't moral, and the government passes a law that says that all milk being sold in the country must be pasturized (for the public good), it's clear that the Catholic church should be pasturizing their milk. (or going home).

How you feel about pasturization has nothing to do with it. It's to the public's benefit. I have alway been disturbed by the church's selective charity.


Discrimination is wrong, no matter how you want to argue it. A lot of people will defend discrimination if they happen to dislike what's being discriminated against, but any discrimination against themselves is somehow automatically bad.

To follow the analogy, the Catholic Church is being criticised for saying: "In that case we are going home."

Discrimination is a classic doubletalk word. If you think the thing being "discriminated" against is wrong, then it isn't discrimination. Who decides what is discrimination and what is using a sensible judgement?

[ajaxfetish]

Just to try to clarify the 'discrimination' issue. Discrimination as a concept is not inherently bad. We all discriminate on a daily basis, using all sorts of criteria. You don't hire every applicant to a job, you don't eat at every restaurant at once, you don't wear all your clothes simultaneously, etc. You must pick and choose, and this process is discrimination.

Discrimination becomes a bad thing when the criteria used to discriminate are morally wrong. For example, if your discrimination in hiring a job applicant is based on competence, willingness to abide by company policy, flexibility of scheduling, etc., then fine. If that same discrimination is based on gender, skin color, sexual orientation, etc., then we start running into problems.

The issue here is that the Catholic Church and the U.K. government do not share the same moral framework. I'm not going to comment on who is right and who is wrong because like probably all people I do not have an objective stance from which to judge the issue. I could say who I do and do not agree with, but that is beside the point. The thing to keep in mind when labelling policies as discriminatory or not is that you are buying into one or the other moral framework and your arguments will not make sense to those who do not share it.

Ajax

[Don Corleone]

Well put, Ajax.

[Don Corleone]

So, we're right back to square one. Does the government have the right to force morality on people? What if the government determined that not only the right to have an aboriton was a good thing, but abortions themselves were in the public good. Do they not then have the right to force people to bend to their morality? China, for example, could be said to be acting morally in enforcing their One-Child policy, and all those who decry it are bigoted and immoral, no?

I know this is going to send Goofball around his circuits, but I'd like to follow up with Pape on this one. You say that not only if they're accepting government funds, but religious institutions must come under the dominion of legal policy, across the board. Does that mean that churches that operate in Spain MUST perform homosexual marriages (homosexual marriage is recognized in Spain), or be in violation of the law?

[KrooK]

Good job Holy Church
Homosexualism is not normal behavior.
Normal behavior is family with mother and father - man and woman.
Sorry but normal education of child needs man and woman.
Otherwise there are always lacks into education.
Someone might tell that I forgot about lonely parents.
I didn't - lonely parents care about children alone but they show children that normal situation would be man/woman and child. Their situation is unnormal but if it changes, it changes only on normal.

2 homosexualist will be never educating children normally. This child has no
father or no mother.

Sorry but Holy Church did good job.

Gays should not be allowed to adopt.

[Mooks]

Religion comes before all else in my point of view.

[InsaneApache]

Even if that means a kid wallowing in local government care?

[Watchman]

Homosexualism is not normal behavior.
Normal behavior is family with mother and father - man and woman.
Sorry but normal education of child needs man and woman.
Otherwise there are always lacks into education.
Someone might tell that I forgot about lonely parents.
I didn't - lonely parents care about children alone but they show children that normal situation would be man/woman and child. Their situation is unnormal but if it changes, it changes only on normal.

2 homosexualist will be never educating children normally. This child has no
father or no mother.

Since you seem to know so well what is "normal", and why it's so important, how about you tell us too ?

Oh yeah, and you're making baby Jesus cry.

[Don Corleone]

Interesting point, IA. Which hits on the crux of the matter... if you're doing society a favor, do you have the right to be discriminating in the way you do it?

If I put out a public grant for battered women's shelters, but I attach a caveat that any women allowed into my shelter must prove themselves to be drug-free or risk eviction, am I within my rights? Should the government force me to accept drug-using moms, and risk me closing the shelter down? Or should they tolerate my conditions, even though they disagree with them?

If I do close the shelter, I haven't taken anything away, I've stopped giving. Am I acting immorally? Are you morally required to continue to provide more than you are required to, when doing so violates your own principals?

I think the church is being rather small-minded here, surely two gay guys raising a girl, while not optimal, is better than the same girl being raised in an institution. But I'm not arguing that the church's position is right. I'm arguing that they have the right to do it.