Are adoption agencies required to give a reason for any refusal?
Poster
BT Rep: +1
Are adoption agencies required to give a reason for any refusal?
The best way to keep a secret:- Tell everyone not to tell anyone.
Darth Monk Like.
So they will stop doing it. If their option is to do something which is against their teachings, then I think they have no option at all. Similarly for any other adoption agency who cannot abide by this new law.Originally Posted by ilw
we're not talking about getting a fridge/freezer here, the real question here is whether the catholic church is still a suitable agency to handle adoptions. If they can't accept this ruling on homosexual couples then apparently the answer is no.
It's against what the Church teaches. Wtf?!!
Gays should fuck off and use another agency then.
Or indeed any agency which cannot abide by any change in any law. It's kind of how the law thing works.
So who really loses out here. I'm only guessing, however I would venture that in this instance it's the (primarilly) Catholic couples who would have approached the agency and the children they would have adopted. Again, the same will apply if there are Anglican adoption agencies, or Muslim adoption agencies. Pity really, just another example of PC being more important than actually helping the vast bulk of the population.
However, as Les said it really is only a very small portion of the total adoptions in any given year.
Last edited by Chip Monk; 01-26-2007 at 12:00 PM.
You do not need to see my I.D.
Member
No option? What about coming out of the dark ages and changing their teachings to better reflect todays society, and align themselves with the words and examples of their messiah.
Darth Monk Like.
For Catholics that was Vatican II. I don't really know what the situation is for other churches who teach that the homosexual act is wrong. However I think it's unlikely that any of them will change their teachings "to better reflect todays society".No option? What about coming out of the dark ages and changing their teachings to better reflect todays society, and align themselves with the words and examples of their messiah.
You do not need to see my I.D.
there is no god
Obviously the official church lines and my own view differ as to homosexuality being a sin, so not arguing that here. But the emboldened part reminded me of this............
I didn't follow this up so don't know the final stance but wouldn't this be an example of changing to "better reflecting society"?
source
I will not post the entire link
I mean this isn't just deciding something isn't a sin, it's changing the way the "afterlife" worksMany Catholics would see the abandonment of limbo as a good thing - there is little doubt that some interpretations of the teaching may have caused untold misery to the millions of parents whose children have died without being baptised.
But there are those who argue that it is not simply a "hypothesis" that can just be swept aside; that the notion that unbaptised children do not go to heaven has been a fundamental part of Church teaching for hundreds of years.
Then, of course, there is the argument that if this can be abolished, what else is disposable?
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Use Logic Or STFU!!!
Fixed
That makes even less sense!Professing that one is gay can be an entire lifestyle choice that is contradictory to Church doctrine so I'd understand the adoption agency saying to fuck off.
Silly bitch, your weapons cannot harm me. Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, Bitchhhh!
Flies Like An Arrow, Flies Like An Apple
---12323---4552-----
2133--STRENGTH--8310
344---5--5301---3232
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
I take your point, however that's not changing teachings to better reflect modern society.Obviously the official church lines and my own view differ as to homosexuality being a sin, so not arguing that here. But the emboldened part reminded me of this............
I didn't follow this up so don't know the final stance but wouldn't this be an example of changing to "better reflecting society"?
source
I will not post the entire link
I mean this isn't just deciding something isn't a sin, it's changing the way the "afterlife" worksMany Catholics would see the abandonment of limbo as a good thing - there is little doubt that some interpretations of the teaching may have caused untold misery to the millions of parents whose children have died without being baptised.
But there are those who argue that it is not simply a "hypothesis" that can just be swept aside; that the notion that unbaptised children do not go to heaven has been a fundamental part of Church teaching for hundreds of years.
Then, of course, there is the argument that if this can be abolished, what else is disposable?
Let's also clear the other misconception up. It's the homosexual act which is considered a sin by the Catholic Church. If someone is attracted to people of the same sex that is not considered a sin, that's just the way they are. I know you are going to cry foul on this one anyway, however the Churches position is simply that men (or women) should not have sexual relations with those of the same sex.
Again, not a value judgement on my part, just clearing up any confusion you may have. I think MN was thinking along the same lines as you earlier.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
there is no god
How is it not changing to reflect? People were upset about unbaptised children and as society progress were questioning the existence of limbo. IMO both limbo and the homosexual act being classed a sin are man made.
The "act" part I have always accepted as the official stance today. Before it was always stated that homosexuality is the sin but as science pointed more and more in the direction of it being genetic then the phrasing was tightened, so I wasn't under a misconception on this.
However, (me being me, as you pointed out) phrasing it this way raises more questions than answers.
If the act is a sin but the attraction isn't doesn't that mean that the church accepts that homosexuality (sans doing it) is a natural thing?
If "God" created us and the act is the sin but not the homosexuality itself then isn't the doctrine outlawing gods work?
As I've said before, even though I think they are wrong I have no problems if people wish to believe in a god. It's the doctrines of organised religions that make my goat chew.
Last edited by vidcc; 01-26-2007 at 06:17 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
If you are interested in the Catholic Chuch's position with regard to homosexuality then this note by Cardinal Hume is probably as good a thing to read as any.
http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/cit...y/hs970400.htm
If anyone wishes clarification on any of Cardinal Hume's words please feel free to take them up with the Chuch, as I don't intend interpreting them here.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
never heard that before.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
) phrasing it this way raises more questions than answers.
Bookmarks