broken arm
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 12,083
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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"!
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.
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"!
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?
I just think every child has a right to a mother and father.
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.
i hear gaybos are good cooks and lezbos can do DIY.
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.
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.
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade nowWe use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.