Catholic Church says No to Gay Adoption (1 Viewer)

[RSJ]

Fair enough Bellatrix, well in my case it wasn't a platitude - it was a statement based on experience that I've really thought through.

So you know a lot of kids who've been brought up by two same sex parents?

 

[avernus]

And there are quite a few women who look like Tom Selleck.

but I wonder what their feelings are on the 2nd amendment..

 

[RSJ]

A lot of this thread reminds me of...

Homer: “Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm!”
Lisa: “That’s specious reasoning, dad. By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.”
Homer: “Hmm; how does it work?”
Lisa: “It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!”
Homer: “Uh-huh.”
Lisa: “... but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?”
Homer: “Lisa, I want to buy your rock...”

 

[snakybus]

So you know a lot of kids who've been brought up by two same sex parents?

perhaps the way I said that was misleading - no, I don't know a lot of kids who've been brought up by two same sex parents.

You're quite right to imply (somewhat sarcastically ) that I don't have all the facts or experience - I'm quite interested in hearing stories from those with a different experience.

And by the way, Billy, your statement about infants - if it's true (and I think it is) is important. From what I've read, most prospective adopting couples look for babies, and not children over the age of 2 or 3.

 

[avernus]

Pft. Gays dont do that. God/ Bhudda / Gaia/ help your kids.

Batman. May Batman help my kids.

 

[magicbastarder]

But really, do I really need a sociological or scientific study to prove the importance of maternal nurturing?

how does 'yes' sound?

 

[snakybus]

how does 'yes' sound?

it sounds like your a smart ass

 

[magicbastarder]

it sounds like i need more proof than what some stranger says on the internet.

 

[snakybus]

Well get to know me, then, and I won't seem so strange!

We could go for a cup of tea.

Look - I could but honestly, right now I don't have time. Maybe tomorrow I'll have more time to look it up. But really, what I meant by that is "it goes without saying". It was a rhetorical question. I'd like to think people have an innate understanding of some things that I consider fundamental, but you know, perhaps I'm wrong. If you don't trust my account of own personal experience, there's nothing I can do about that.

 

[magicbastarder]

i've always been curious about adoption itself.
of the five suicides (all guys) of people my age when i was in my teens, in the area i grew up in, i know for a fact that two were adopted, and i think a third may have been. and i know people with adopted siblings who have had serious issues to deal with.
a friend of my mother's who works with troubled kids maintains that she sees a lot more adopted kids than simple demographics would imply, so i'd be curious if it's a local glitch, or whether knowing you're adopted has a negative impact on your outlook.

 

[billygannon]

You need to think about the original argument here.

You're the adoption agency. You have a list of kids who need to be adopted. You have a list of couples and adults who want to adopt.

You look at various factors to decide which parents should adopt a particular child. This can be if the potential adoptive parents have an existing relationship with the child; what their economic status is; what the parents' state of health is like; if they're not registered sex offenders, etc. etc.

What this law being introduced in to Britain is saying that given all these contributing factors being met, and if the adoptive agency can reasonably assess that the potential parents will provide a loving and caring environment where the child can grow up in and experience a fulfilling life, then they should allow for the adoption to happen. The fact that this environment is being provided by a same-sex couple should not come in to consideration.

What these Catholic agencies suggest is that a gay couple cannot provide a good home for a child to be raised in. This is wrong and this is unnecessarily discriminatory. And that's why this law should be passed.

There is no universal rule when it comes to parenting. Believe me when I say this. Many of us here are used to having a mother and father bring us up - and/or we're used to raising a child with a member of the opposite sex. However this is not the only way to bring up children and it is something that we should be keenly aware of.

Children have a right to grow up in an environment where they will be safe, where they will be educated about the world around them, and where they will be loved and cared for. How that environment is constructed is not based on universal truths or particular natural laws.

It's based upon the adults who create it. If they are good people and they want to give their time to raise a child and provide this enivronment then they should be allowed - regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

There are plenty of cases where we all know of where it is not good for both the father and mother to be raising the child.

 

[Bellatrix]

I'd like to think people have an innate understanding of some things that I consider fundamental

That precise thought has been used to argue in favour of every form of discrimination in human history.

"That's nature, folks. I don't make the rules."

 

[snakybus]

Bellatrix, I'm not saying "that's nature, I don't make the rules" so much as I'm saying that I shouldn't need science to explain what I thought was a widely accepted truth. As another example, the statement "discrimination is bad" is another widely accepted truth. Do I need a scientific/sociological study to prove that? (that's a rhetorical question) And Billy, I agree with most of what you said there. I think we just disagree on the basic argument, which I've already dissected.

 

[avernus]

Bellatrix, I'm not saying "that's nature, I don't make the rules" so much as I'm saying that I shouldn't need science to explain what I thought was a widely accepted truth. As another example, the statement "discrimination is bad" is another widely accepted truth. Do I need a scientific/sociological study to prove that? (that's a rhetorical question) And Billy, I agree with most of what you said there. I think we just disagree on the basic argument, which I've already dissected.

so do you think it's not discrimination to give precedence to heterosexual couples adopting over homosexual couples - just because.. well mothers are great with the kids?

 

[Bellatrix]

Bellatrix, I'm not saying "that's nature, I don't make the rules" so much as I'm saying that I shouldn't need science to explain what I thought was a widely accepted truth.

Just because something is widely accepted doesn't make it true. The fact that people feel they don't need to provide any justification for what are really just prejudices based on their own limited experience is the reason that blacks/women/gays etcetcetc have had such a hard time getting equal rights.

 

[billygannon]

And Billy, I agree with most of what you said there. I think we just disagree on the basic argument, which I've already dissected.

I reckon what you're getting at is that all things being equal, you should give the nod to the heterosexual couple.

Frankly I don't know. I mean, you're talking about a one-in-a-million case, which would probably go through the courts etc.

It's very unlikely that there will be two couples, one heterosexual, one homosexual, who have exactly the same income, live in the same area as the child, and can both provide exactly the same environment for the child to grow up in.
In that case it'll be a lottery who will adopt the child. What you're suggesting is that the child should go to the heterosexual couple. I don't really have a rule to be applied in this case.

Otherwise, I presume you agree with me that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt.

I mean say for instance a guy has a brother who is gay and is married to a man. Now say this guy and his wife die when their child is an infant. Surely you would agree, given that this brother is a good man who has the means and time to bring up the child, that the brother should be allowed to adopt this guy's child above a heterosexual couple who want to adopt.

It is a case-by-case basis. It's just plain wrong of the Catholic Church to simply assume that a gay couple cannot provide a good environment to bring up a child. In the hypothetical case I just suggested a Catholic agency would give the child to the heterosexual couple. Surely you can't agree with that?

 

[snakybus]

so do you think it's not discrimination to give precedence to heterosexual couples adopting over homosexual couples - just because.. well mothers are great with the kids?

I accept that this could be regarded as an inequality, yes. Discrimination? Yes, of a kind - of course it's only theoretical. But as Billy pointed out, there are all kinds of other factors which would be more pressing and more important. So, in theory, it probably wouldn't matter. However, saying "just because mothers are good with kids" is just a reduction of what I was saying to a soundbite, and I don't accept that.

Bellatrix, if you don't think a mother is hugely important to a baby, and really require scientific evidence for it, and want to talk about racism etc, instead of sticking to the point, well, be my guest. Personally I think it's a fundamental thing, and I've provided my own reasons for thinking it. Have you reasons for thinking otherwise?

Billy, I think you make some very good points there actually. And I accept absolutely that in the example you provide I would indeed send the child to the brother. In those situations, yes I would agree the catholic adoption agencies providing a blaket denial to gay couples would be a "very bad thing". But as you say, these things are teased out on a case-by-case basis.

 

[snakybus]

oh hey sorry if I was a bit cranky today guys

last couple of nights I been up with crying babbies, I'm fuckered!

 

[avernus]

I accept that this could be regarded as an inequality, yes. Discrimination? Yes, of a kind - of course it's only theoretical. But as Billy pointed out, there are all kinds of other factors which would be more pressing and more important. So, in theory, it probably wouldn't matter. However, saying "just because mothers are good with kids" is just a reduction of what I was saying to a soundbite, and I don't accept that.

Bellatrix, if you don't think a mother is hugely important to a baby, and really require scientific evidence for it, and want to talk about racism etc, instead of sticking to the point, well, be my guest. Personally I think it's a fundamental thing, and I've provided my own reasons for thinking it. Have you reasons for thinking otherwise?

Billy, I think you make some very good points there actually. And I accept absolutely that in the example you provide I would indeed send the child to the brother. In those situations, yes I would agree the catholic adoption agencies providing a blaket denial to gay couples would be a "very bad thing". But as you say, these things are teased out on a case-by-case basis.

apologies for the soundbite/paraphrasing - but to me that's the essence of your point. but of course I accept that (good) mothers are great and are important for children as in fact are (good) fathers. I mean what kind of monster doesn't accept that?! anyway, the fact is - the children being adopted don't have mothers or fathers and are being adopted by people who, hopefully, will love them and raise them as their own. so I think the sexuality of the potential foster parents is irrelevant as long as they are suitable.

 

[Lord Damian]

why all the arguing? we all know that robots with AI will be raising our kids in the next 10 or 20 years anyways! i think the real question is: can a robot be gay?