Catholic Church says No to Gay Adoption (1 Viewer)

[JenFast]

theres no reason why they shouldn't but i can't see the holy fat cats giving in to this one...not for a long time yet anyway[excuse the pun but god knows why]
ctually has tony blair made his decision yet?

 

[billygannon]

ctually has tony blair made his decision yet?

If he's gay or not?

 

[JenFast]

that too...

nah its his call or not weather the catholic church should be exempt for adopting children over to same sex couples.

 

[Squiggle]

I'm interested to know why people (here) think it's better for a child to be placed with a straight couple. I think generally people do think this, whether they're religious or not. Personally I don't think "a parent is a parent no matter what" - that implies that all parents are the same. They're not.

I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of single people being able to adopt actually, I have more of a problem with that than I do with the sexual orientation of a prospective adoptive couple.

I think that it is good for a child to have positive role models of both sexes but, as in the case many "natural" or biological children, these positive role models are not necessarily going to be the parents.

should have phrased it better, definitely each parent is different, but alas a gay parent can do just a good of job raising a child in a safe, happy and loving environment as a straight parent...no?

I think the main difference is the responsibility. There are some dreadful parents out there... but the responsibility for the well-being of the child that they parented is largely with them and with their family... the state will intervene very unwillingly if there are complaints made.

However, if the state or another organisation places a child that is their responsibility in the care of someone who turns out to be unsuitable the blame is seen to lie with them, not the adoptive family.

As a result of this they attempt to set out guidelines that will ensure that the adopted child is going to be cared for financially and emotionally and given the best chance at a "normal" life.

Ideas are changing... but do we honestly expect the Catholic Church to back down on this one?

 

[broken arm]

[video=google;-7021202528388041252]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7021202528388041252&hl=en[/video]

 

[snakybus]

Maybe jesus was a gay and all!

Well, I can't say whether a gay couple would make suitable parents or not, not knowing all the gay couples in the world, or not even having heard any anecdotal evidence to support it or deny it. I'm sure there are studies out there - does anyone here know of any?

I do know from experience that a child does need both a father and a mother and all the liberalism in the world doesn't change that. And even though there are many situations where this has not been the case and the kids turn out fine (such as single mothers like my own sister), and even though there are many straight parents who might be regarded as bad parents, given the choice I would sooner see a child go to straight parents. I mean, think about it - you could be denying a child a mother (or a father). These aren't just arbitrary, wishy-washy, society-created concepts, you know? They have profound meaning.

However, I'm not an adoption agency so my opinion doesn't matter one jot. And who's to stop people from having kids - gay or otherwise - the natural way anyway, right? So the point is rather irrelevant. I think the more interesting issue is the catholic church's stance in this case and how it conflicts with a secular law - I'll be interested to see how it turns out. It's mad that it's Tony Blair's call though, and only his, isn't it?

 

[JenFast]

hahaha fuckin'ell
[in response to the video]


they probably wont back down, they selfishly said that if they are made to amend to the law that they will close all their adoption agencies altogether...

 

[broken arm]

adoption is for faggits

ah now

 

[JenFast]

It's mad that it's Tony Blair's call though, and only his, isn't it?

as far as i know, but i think it only appeals to Britain, im sure its someone elses decision somewhere else... i could be wrong on that btw

 

[snakybus]

as far as i know, but i think it only appeals to Britain, im sure its someone elses decision somewhere else... i could be wrong on that btw

I'd say you're most likely right

 

[broken arm]

I'm sure there are studies out there - does anyone here know of any?

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpstspec.html

 

[egg_]

they probably wont back down, they selfishly said that if they are made to amend to the law that they will close all their adoption agencies altogether...

Selfish? I think that's fair enough, to be honest.

Interested in your "child needs a mother and a father" stance, snaky. I'm instinctively inclined to agree, but I seem to remember that in lots of "wild" human societies (in the south-sea-islands, for instance) children have no almost contact with men until they're a few years old. Billy, you studied anthropology didn't you? Care to comment?

 

[billygannon]

I do know from experience that a child does need both a father and a mother and all the liberalism in the world doesn't change that. And even though there are many situations where this has not been the case and the kids turn out fine (such as single mothers like my own sister), and even though there are many straight parents who might be regarded as bad parents, given the choice I would sooner see a child go to straight parents. I mean, think about it - you could be denying a child a mother (or a father). These aren't just arbitrary, wishy-washy, society-created concepts, you know? They have profound meaning.

But you see, the notion of a father and mother is an arbitrary, wishy-washy, society-created concept.

Even in the culture we're used to, where this is supposed to be the norm, there are many, many families who don't adhere to this structure. And many of these families work out fine.

It's not a science. Having a father and a mother should work, technically - but it's not definitive.

I suppose the only seemingly natural bond is between a child and it's mother during the pregnancy and while breast feeding.
After that, it's really down to the society that the child lives in and who actually brings it up. A child just needs people who care for it. How that is structured isn't something natural.

 

[broken arm]

can people define what the problems that not having the mother/father duet creates?

no? ok then.

 

[billygannon]

Maybe jesus was a gay and all!

Well, he did have a moustache and hang out with only guys.

 

[JenFast]

Selfish? I think that's fair enough, to be honest.

ha, if you say so....
like i said before if we could all just decide which part of the law we want to obey eh?!
there are more than alot of children out there who need families, and for them to say give it to us our way or we wont help find children adoptive families....
oh yeah thats very fair.....and "christian" of them...

 

[snakybus]

Well billygannon, I have to disagree with you there. Personally, I think it's anything but arbitrary. I'm sure you'll hit me with some anthropological study now, but....

As for this:
can people define what the problems that not having the mother/father duet creates?

no? ok then

Well surely a social/anthropological study (like the ones you linked me to!) are, by their nature, a "definition" of these problems/benefits?

 

[billygannon]

Well billygannon, I have to disagree with you there. Personally, I think it's anything but arbitrary. I'm sure you'll hit me with some anthropological study now, but....

You see, I don't really have to come up with some anthropological study. Because you know it's true, that everything I do, I do it for you.

 

[broken arm]

Well billygannon, I have to disagree with you there. Personally, I think it's anything but arbitrary. I'm sure you'll hit me with some anthropological study now, but....

As for this:
can people define what the problems that not having the mother/father duet creates?

no? ok then

Well surely a social/anthropological study (like the ones you linked me to!) are, by their nature, a "definition" of these problems/benefits?

i didn't read them. some of the studies were looking at particular things like "does having gay parents make you gay"

but to say something is a problem without defining the problem only leaves questions.

 

[snakybus]

oh right, Broken Arm, so what you're saying is, can people - like us here, not science, ncessarily - define them? Yes, well of course I can define lots of possible problems, just from personal experience. That's why I have this particular opinion. (and Billy, look into my eyes, you will see, what you mean to me-ee)