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.

[DukeofSerbia]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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....

[Duke of Gloucester]

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.

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 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.

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)

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.

[KukriKhan]

From the Cardinal's letter to Blair & Co:

...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?

[Redleg]

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.

[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.)

[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...

[GoreBag]

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

Working on it.

So, we're right back to square one. Does the government have the right to force morality on people?

They have the "right" to force whatever they can. Their purpose is to govern, after all.

[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.

[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.

[King Henry V]

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.

Well if that is the case:

-Should the Catholic Church be prosecuted for refusing to perform marriage services for people based on their sexual orientation?

-Should the Catholic Church be prosecuted for refusing to hire people based on their sexual orientation (no homosexual priests)?

-Should the Catholic Church be prosecuted for refusing to hire people based on their gender (no female priests)?

[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.

[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.

[InsaneApache]

Maybe someone here could clarify something for me. Where in the NT does it state that homosexuality is a no-no? It's been quite some time since I read the bible but I don't recall Jesus ever saying that homosexuals are an abomination. Just wondering who decided they were, if Jesus did not.