Catholic Church says No to Gay Adoption (1 Viewer)

[billygannon]

(and Billy, look into my eyes, you will see, what you mean to me-ee)

Do you think we should consider adoption?

Actually... have you considered:

Greg Evigan would make a great mum!

 

[snakybus]

I bags being the beardy one! He has a mullet too, which makes him twice as cool.

 

[RSJ]

At the risk of sounding a bit Catholic, can we not allow the straight couples who can't have kids though would love to, to adopt first, before letting the prove-a-points adopt?

So if two gay people were more suitable than two straight people to adopt a kid, you'd give it to the two straight people beacuse... That's traditional?

And, in fairness to the Catholic Church, they have a stance, they shouldn't be made go against their faith.

The reasoning may be wrong, but that doesn't mean we have to criminalise their beliefs.

Horseshit. If the church had their way, we'd be burning homosexuals at the stake and adultery would be punishable by death because of their "stance" on their "beliefs".

 

[Pantone247]

has anyone made the...

"I'm all for gay adoption, in fact I've adpoted two fags and a lezzer already"

...joke yet? Cause I will if no one else wants too...

thanks

P247

 

[billygannon]

Madonna buys a packet of fags?

Actually, is the plural of fag (as in homosexual), a "packet"?

The plural of women is "gossip".. as in "a gossip of women".

 

[Pantone247]

Two Taxi Drivers in a Closet - A One Act Play

"I was out at Dragon last night"

"any good?"

"yeah alright, but I was followed around by a Royal Family of Queens"

 

[JenFast]

well if i was a lesbian looking to adopt i would hope that my sexual orientation would not prohibit me from adopting and bringing up a child, i know there are straight couples who unfortunately cannot conceive but is it not in the same instance if two homosexuals [especially two men] cannot naturally conceive to be allowed the same right to adoption.....even though they are a same sex couple, they are still a couple and still want to parent a child which to me they should be allowed the right to.....everyone is entitled to equal rights yes?

 

[Lord Damian]

.....everyone is entitled to equal rights yes?

not as far as the Catholic Church is concerned.

which leads me to my next question:
WHO THE FUCK STILL CARES WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS TO SAY?

 

[Pantone247]

not as far as the Catholic Church is concerned.

which leads me to my next question:
WHO THE FUCK STILL CARES WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS TO SAY?

spot the fella who doesn't live in Ireland...

 

[Lord Damian]

spot the fella who doesn't live in Ireland...

point taken. but really, as a practicing satanist, i just find it ridiculous.

 

[JenFast]

four outta five irish people prefer Tayto's......but theres always one

 

[Pantone247]

point taken. but really, as a practicing satanist, i just find it ridiculous.

actually I should elaborate, the church is actually probably as unpopular here as anywhere else, or certainly going that way, but they still have quiet a hand in schools and adoption agencies, some hosptials, maybe nursing homes, back from the olden days when they would've run a lot of those sorts of institutions cause they had loads of money and the state didn't

 

[ernesto]

church is for fags

 

[Lord Damian]

actually I should elaborate, the church is actually probably as unpopular here as anywhere else, or certainly going that way, but they still have quiet a hand in schools and adoption agencies, some hosptials, maybe nursing homes, back from the olden days when they would've run a lot of those sorts of institutions cause they had loads of money and the state didn't

naw, it's me who should elaborate. by "practicing satanist" i really mean gay muslim. and by "ridiculous" i really mean sexually exciting.

 

[nlgbbbblth]

I was adopted by a straight couple.

It's all I've ever known and I thought it was pretty cool to grow up with two parents of opposing sexes.

Certainly growing up in rural Ireland in the 1970s with same sex parents would have been difficult - no point in denying that. Both for me and them.

 

[pete]

well if i was a lesbian looking to adopt i would hope that my sexual orientation would not prohibit me from adopting and bringing up a child, i know there are straight couples who unfortunately cannot conceive but is it not in the same instance if two homosexuals [especially two men] cannot naturally conceive to be allowed the same right to adoption.....even though they are a same sex couple, they are still a couple and still want to parent a child which to me they should be allowed the right to.....everyone is entitled to equal rights yes?

JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.
REG: Agreed. Francis?
FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
FRANCIS: Or woman... to rid himself--
STAN: Or herself.
FRANCIS: Or herself.
REG: Agreed.
FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.
STAN: Or sister.
FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?
REG: I think you'd finished.
FRANCIS: Oh. Right.
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

sorry

 

[Buzzo]

can we not allow the straight couples who can't have kids though would love to, to adopt first, before letting the prove-a-points adopt?

I can't tell if you're joking or not sometimes Goffer. Are you?

 

[Corey]

I can't tell if you're joking or not sometimes Goffer. Are you?

Ban this sick filth.

 

[nofunchee]

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.

i see what you're saying in a way. i mean i don't agree with you, but i can see how both male and female role-models being present is positive, not that it's a strict nescessity. i'm from a broken home and my da wasn't around much and it only made a difference, as far as i can see, in terms of my ma having to work full-time and look after me and my brother full-time too. it was pretty exhausting for her. but the sharing of looking after kids shouldn't be solely within the family unit i reckon. i think things should be structured differently to make many aspects of life more suitable to having kids around. a situation where kids come into contact with many adults and other kids would be very rewarding i reckon and in the case of single-parent families or single sex couple parents this would mean that kids wouldn't be deprived of role-models of either biological gender.

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...

ha! wonder how that fits into their whole pro-life agenda.

actually I should elaborate, the church is actually probably as unpopular here as anywhere else, or certainly going that way, but they still have quiet a hand in schools and adoption agencies, some hosptials, maybe nursing homes, back from the olden days when they would've run a lot of those sorts of institutions cause they had loads of money and the state didn't

the catholic church runs something like 98% of all primary schools in the state. the figure is lower for secondry schools but they still run the majority of those. these schools are immune to the employment equality act and may discriminate against the employment of teachers who are not in line with their religious doctrine. also, the 'deed of variation', to which all catholic schools must adhere, ensure that these schools are run according to the rules of the church. being gay in school is bad enough without being discriminated against by the school itself too i reckon.

apologies for the off-topicness.

 

[snakybus]

Also slightly off-topic: It's not just Ireland where the catholic church is strong. One in four people who adopt in Britain are catholic (largely to do with getting into the superior catholic schools, I'd imagine), and I think it's safe to say that most of these would prefer to go through a catholic agency. I know that's neither here nor there in terms of the principles involved, but in terms of the practicalities of the whole thing, you can see how it makes the Catholic agencies feel they have a service to provide to their parishioners, who share their beliefs (and I'm not arguing their case, just clarifying things).

Another point to note is that the Anglican bishop has also signed the statement about this. Britain is not a secular state, in spite of the fact that secular laws are passed all the time. I think it's interesting because, in this case, we have a secular law that's clearly moralistic. The moral in this case is that "discrimination is bad" and the knock-on morals that result from this statement. And however righteous or possibly simplistic you might think that is, it is moralistic. And crucially, the idea that they could impose this particular moral on a catholic community who disagrees with it could be construed as, well, dogmatic. Isn't this what secularism, pluralism, multiculturalism etc wants to avoid?

Again, I'm not arguing the catholics' case, but pointing out that they are between a rock and a hard place on this one - and really, who honestly thinks they'll back down? In a secular world, the only ideal situation is if there are no religions and dogmas. But will that ever happen? I think the reasonable solution in this case for Tony Blair is to just let the catholics have what they want - to politely decline and refer gay couples to the secular adoption agency up the road, however hypocritical that may be. And just as an aside, how would you feel if it were a muslim adoption agency providing adoption services to muslims? Would you feel that, for cultural reasons at least, they deserve the right to stick to their guns? or would you jump up and shout "discrimination"!