Catholic Church says No to Gay Adoption (1 Viewer)

[broken arm]

 

[broken arm]

discrimination is discrimination.

it is a total farce to provide derogations on anti-discrimination law.

 

[billygannon]

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"!

It looks like the Catholic Church will lose this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6297107.stm

It seems like the big reason is because they got their way with the faith schools issue.

But this Equality Act "outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation."

If they let the Catholic Church opt out of this law, then it could set a precedence for Catholics to opt out of providing a lot of other services and goods to homosexuals (for instance a Catholic B&B refusing to let gay couples stay together in one of their rooms - simply because they're gay).

It is a simple yes or no decision in this case. Basically the British government have to decide whether or not it is okay for the Catholic Church to discriminate against homosexual people. Because the British government has to represent people with a variety of beliefs and view points, it has a duty to ensure that everyone is treated equally.

Therefore they can't step down on this issue. If they say it is okay for a Catholic to discriminate against a gay person, then it leaves a legal loophole which will result in continued discrimination of homosexual people in far more areas than just adoption.

 

[Pantone247]

imagine going to a school where the teacher is obliged to educate you from the viewpoint that your gay adoptive parents, who have loved and raised you and whom you love in return, were going to burn in hell




I think I see a sitcom!!!

 

[snakybus]

hmm, looks like it all right

however:

this Equality Act "outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation."

If they let the Catholic Church opt out of this law, then it could set a precedence for Catholics to opt out of providing a lot of other services and goods to homosexuals (for instance a Catholic B&B refusing to let gay couples stay together in one of their rooms - simply because they're gay).

If this is the case, as you say, it seems daft to me to lump the adoption of children in with "goods, facilities and services". I mean, a child is slightly more important than a B&B, no? As for "discrimination is discrimination", well there are other rights involved here as well - the rights of the children themselves? Otherwise this would be a no-brainer.

 

[billygannon]

If this is the case, as you say, it seems daft to me to lump the adoption of children in with "goods, facilities and services". I mean, a child is slightly more important than a B&B, no? As for "discrimination is discrimination", well there are other rights involved here as well - the rights of the children themselves? Otherwise this would be a no-brainer.

I understand that what an adoption agency does is more important than what a B&B does. However they still are a service provider and, as such, they have to adhere to the laws governing the provision of services.

The rights of the child aren't remotely affected. This law is not closing down adoption agencies. Clearly it's not a good thing that these agencies will closed due to this law being brought in. But it's the Catholic Church who are doing doing the closing. They're doing that because they want to discriminate against gay couples (but they're happy to deal with them if they are not married).

Instead of saying that this law is wrong, I think you need to focus your criticism of the Catholic Church in this case. Very simply, they're putting their belief that they should be allowed to discriminate against gay couples over the provision of care that their adoption agencies provide.

It's simple. If the British government say it's not okay to discriminate against homosexuals... but it is okay if you're Catholic... then we're back to square one.

 

[snakybus]

Yes I appreciate all that but I just think every child has a right to a mother and father. These are the rights I'm talking about. The whole issue of the catholics not toeing the line is a separate one.

 

[broken arm]

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/childrenactreport/

 

[nlgbbbblth]

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"!

I would imagine that people (on this board at least) would be quicker to condemn the Catholics for homophobia than the Muslims.

 

[Bellatrix]

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?

Does "a bit Catholic" mean "like an unthinking, bigoted moron" now.

If so, then you do sound quite Catholic.

 

[Bellatrix]

I just think every child has a right to a mother and father.

I'm sure there are any number of children who would have gladly dispensed with the right to have an abusive or negligent mother or father and a large percentage of children are raised by single-parents so that point, while very easy to expound, really doesn't factor in the realities and complications of life, does it?

Studies in the UK have shown that those gay couples who make it through the rigorous screening process for adoption make just as good parents as their straight counterparts. Also, gay couples have been proven to be better at dealing with children with behavioural problems.

Personally I think that people really object to gay couples adopting because they (secretly or otherwise) think that gay couples are morally degenerate. I've never heard an argument against gay adoption that didn't skirt that issue or wasn't full of irrelevant platitudes like the one above.

 

[snakybus]

irrelevant platitudes? are you a parent? have you any idea what it involves? Have you any idea whatsoever what the difference between a father and a mother is - in real life - and how that can affect a child?

If you are, then maybe I'll take that statement seriously. I don't take accusations of bigotry lightly.

Your point about negligent or abusive parents holds no water. It's fair to say that if, in the general population there is X% of scum-baggedness, then there is also the same X% in the gay population.

Your point about single parents is a non-point. We're talking about adoption here, not single parents. I think most people will agree that two parents is better for all concerned. Talk to any single parent and they will tell you this. Correct, the complications of life don't always allow for this, but that's not to say that, when it comes to adoption, you should opt for a single parent, just because it happens in real life all the time. That's not to take away from single parents - I think they do a great job and fair play to them.

As for the issue of studies - well I've read about many studies, and from what I've read it's the case that same-sex parents have often provided the same level of care for children as straight couples in those studies, and the kids have turned out fine. I don't have an objection to gay couples with kids - a kid needs love, and if that's the way it works out, fair enough. I just think a straight couple should take precendence.

 

[broken arm]

if the gaybos and/or lezbos pass every other aspect of the strict adoption rules/tests do you think they should be stopped just because they is gaybos and/or lezbos? or should they not even be allowed in the building? the gaybos and lezbos that is.

 

[billygannon]

I just think a straight couple should take precendence.

But why?
Is it because you believe that a straight couple will inherently be better at being parents than a gay couple?

If so, explain why.

 

[broken arm]

But why?
Is it because you believe that a straight couple will inherently be better at being parents than a gay couple?

If so, explain why.

i hear gaybos are good cooks and lezbos can do DIY.

 

[Bellatrix]

i hear gaybos are good cooks and lezbos can do DIY.

Your second ma is your da.

 

[avernus]

are you a parent? have you any idea what it involves? Have you any idea whatsoever what the difference between a father and a mother is - in real life - and how that can affect a child?

If you are, then maybe I'll take that statement seriously.

uh oh! dads mad.

 

[magicbastarder]

apart from the immediate issue of gay parenting, i would have an issue with a religious organisation involved in choosing adoptive parents anyway - cos if they're willing to discriminate based on sexuality, i'd safe it's a safe bet that there are other criteria they base their decisions on which i would have issue with.

 

[Bellatrix]

irrelevant platitudes? are you a parent? have you any idea what it involves? Have you any idea whatsoever what the difference between a father and a mother is - in real life - and how that can affect a child?

If you are, then maybe I'll take that statement seriously. I don't take accusations of bigotry lightly.

Your point about negligent or abusive parents holds no water. It's fair to say that if, in the general population there is X% of scum-baggedness, then there is also the same X% in the gay population.

Your point about single parents is a non-point. We're talking about adoption here, not single parents. I think most people will agree that two parents is better for all concerned. Talk to any single parent and they will tell you this. Correct, the complications of life don't always allow for this, but that's not to say that, when it comes to adoption, you should opt for a single parent, just because it happens in real life all the time. That's not to take away from single parents - I think they do a great job and fair play to them.

As for the issue of studies - well I've read about many studies, and from what I've read it's the case that same-sex parents have often provided the same level of care for children as straight couples in those studies, and the kids have turned out fine. I don't have an objection to gay couples with kids - a kid needs love, and if that's the way it works out, fair enough. I just think a straight couple should take precendence.

Just to clarify, I wasn't calling you a bigot but I do think the "every child has a right to a mother and a father" is a platitude. I don't think there's a magical formula to raising children that only exists in the mystical union of a man and woman. I think a child has a certain number of requirements and if (after considerable screening) a gay couple has been deemed capable of meeting these, then fine.

The kid will grow up in a house that's different from the normative, nuclear family, as do lots of people, but will have two loving parents. Where's the beef?

 

[broken arm]

Your second ma is your da.

this is your da mowing the grass.