Catholic Church loses fight to discriminate ..

[Ava Estelle]

The Catholic Church wants to discriminate against gay couples who want to use their adoption services, contrary to the law. They already discriminate against women, and cover up sexual abuse by gay clergy, but now they are bringing their prejudices out into the open.


Cabinet rejects exemption on gay adoptions

Compromise means Catholic church will not be given special treatment

Will Woodward and Severin Carrell
Thursday January 25, 2007
The Guardian

The Catholic church is almost certain to lose its battle for special treatment over gay adoption rules under a deal agreed by the cabinet to heal damaging divisions between senior ministers. Cabinet sources said the new proposals would require Catholic adoption agencies to consider gay couples - or close down - after a reasonable delay that would allow them to ensure that the children in their care are properly dealt with.

Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,1998017,00.html)

[bigboab]

The Catholic Church wants to discriminate against gay couples who want to use their adoption services, contrary to the law. They already discriminate against women, and cover up sexual abuse by gay clergy, but now they are bringing their prejudices out into the open.


Cabinet rejects exemption on gay adoptions

Compromise means Catholic church will not be given special treatment

Will Woodward and Severin Carrell
Thursday January 25, 2007
The Guardian

The Catholic church is almost certain to lose its battle for special treatment over gay adoption rules under a deal agreed by the cabinet to heal damaging divisions between senior ministers. Cabinet sources said the new proposals would require Catholic adoption agencies to consider gay couples - or close down - after a reasonable delay that would allow them to ensure that the children in their care are properly dealt with.

Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,1998017,00.html)

In my opinion the Church are correct in this one. I am not being homophobic about this as I am sure that there are plenty of 'Gay' couples who would look after adopted children in a proper manner.

I am thinking about the children involved. The abuse the will receive at the school. Make no mistake, other children wont be long in telling and bullying them about their situation.

Not least, if there is the chance that ONE child could be abused sexually through these adoptions, then that is one child too many.

We are all aware, if not we should be, that paedophiles go out of their way to get in contact with children. Some become Scout Leaders, P.E. Teachers and Music Teachers, some even become Clergymen solely to feed their paedophilic desires.

There has already been cases of children being molested by paedophilic foster parents. At the extreme I can see this as a chance to abuse children on a large, even an organized scale.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5109518.stm?ls

As for the genuine gay couples who would make good parents. To them I say, tough. We are all suffering daily through the actions of minorities.

[Chip Monk]

The Catholic Church wants to discriminate against gay couples who want to use their adoption services

Not exactly surprising is it, given that it is entirely consistent with the Churches dogma and teachings. I would be interested to see what position a Muslim adoption service would take, or indeed any adoption service which is linked to a specific Church.


Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor wrote to the prime minister demanding an exemption for Catholic agencies on the grounds that to "oblige our agencies in law to consider adoption applications from homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents would require them to act against the principles of Catholic teaching". His stand was endorsed by the Anglican archbishops of Canterbury and York

Any other stance would actually be a bit mental. "We believe that your lifestyle is wrong ... please have a child.". Nope don't see how that would work. It will be a shame when they are forced to close the agencies rather than compromise their beliefs.

Oh and for the record, you missed out "and Anglican" when you posted who had requested the exemption.

[manker]

The Catholic Church wants to discriminate against gay couples who want to use their adoption services, contrary to the law. They already discriminate against women, and cover up sexual abuse by gay clergy, but now they are bringing their prejudices out into the open.


Cabinet rejects exemption on gay adoptions

Compromise means Catholic church will not be given special treatment

Will Woodward and Severin Carrell
Thursday January 25, 2007
The Guardian

The Catholic church is almost certain to lose its battle for special treatment over gay adoption rules under a deal agreed by the cabinet to heal damaging divisions between senior ministers. Cabinet sources said the new proposals would require Catholic adoption agencies to consider gay couples - or close down - after a reasonable delay that would allow them to ensure that the children in their care are properly dealt with.

Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,1998017,00.html)

In my opinion the Church are correct in this one. I am not being homophobic about this as I am sure that there are plenty of 'Gay' couples who would look after adopted children in a proper manner.

I am thinking about the children involved. The abuse the will receive at the school. Make no mistake, other children wont be long in telling and bullying them about their situation.

Not least, if there is the chance that ONE child could be abused sexually through these adoptions, then that is one child too many.

We are all aware, if not we should be, that paedophiles go out of their way to get in contact with children. Some become Scout Leaders, P.E. Teachers and Music Teachers, some even become Clergymen solely to feed their paedophilic desires.

There has already been cases of children being molested by paedophilic foster parents. At the extreme I can see this as a chance to abuse children on a large, even an organized scale.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5109518.stm?ls

As for the genuine gay couples who would make good parents. To them I say, tough. We are all suffering daily through the actions of minorities.
What the fuck - you're not being homophobic? Yes, yes you are.

People like you make me sick to my stomach, what on earth makes you think that a gay man (or woman) is more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual. Paedophiles aren't driven by a need to have sex, it's more to do with control and power over an individual - and susceptibility to this isn't the sole premis of homosexuals. In fact, it has nothing to do with sexuality.

The only decent point you bring up is the fact that the child is more likely to be bullied because of their same sex adoptive parents. It's a shame, for sure, that children are less forgiving than most of us in this respect but maybe (especially with the gift of hindsight), that child will prefer to endure that than spend the rest of his or her childhood drifting from care-home to foster-home.

The system is open to abuse from both homosexual and heterosexual couples - so if one child could be abused due to adoption schemes in the UK, should we stop all adoptions.

Of course not. Your argument stinks.

[bigboab]

In my opinion the Church are correct in this one. I am not being homophobic about this as I am sure that there are plenty of 'Gay' couples who would look after adopted children in a proper manner.

I am thinking about the children involved. The abuse the will receive at the school. Make no mistake, other children wont be long in telling and bullying them about their situation.

Not least, if there is the chance that ONE child could be abused sexually through these adoptions, then that is one child too many.

We are all aware, if not we should be, that paedophiles go out of their way to get in contact with children. Some become Scout Leaders, P.E. Teachers and Music Teachers, some even become Clergymen solely to feed their paedophilic desires.

There has already been cases of children being molested by paedophilic foster parents. At the extreme I can see this as a chance to abuse children on a large, even an organized scale.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5109518.stm?ls

As for the genuine gay couples who would make good parents. To them I say, tough. We are all suffering daily through the actions of minorities.
What the fuck - you're not being homophobic? Yes, yes you are.

People like you make me sick to my stomach, what on earth makes you think that a gay man (or woman) is more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual. Paedophiles aren't driven by a need to have sex, it's more to do with control and power over an individual - and susceptibility to this isn't the sole premis of homosexuals. In fact, it has nothing to do with sexuality.

The only decent point you bring up is the fact that the child is more likely to be bullied because of their same sex adoptive parents. It's a shame, for sure, that children are less forgiving than most of us in this respect but maybe (especially with the gift of hindsight), that child will prefer to endure that than spend the rest of his or her childhood drifting from care-home to foster-home.

The system is open to abuse from both homosexual and heterosexual couples - so if one child could be abused due to adoption schemes in the UK, should we stop all adoptions.

Of course not. Your argument stinks.


I also think your argument stinks. It is not natural to have children brought up with two 'parents' who are of the same sex. I think there are few exceptions to this. Since when did stating your opinion become homophobic? I will RELUCTANTLY agree to this when all the other european countries comply with this ruling. I wonder how Italy stands on this ruling?:whistling

[manker]

What the fuck - you're not being homophobic? Yes, yes you are.

People like you make me sick to my stomach, what on earth makes you think that a gay man (or woman) is more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual. Paedophiles aren't driven by a need to have sex, it's more to do with control and power over an individual - and susceptibility to this isn't the sole premis of homosexuals. In fact, it has nothing to do with sexuality.

The only decent point you bring up is the fact that the child is more likely to be bullied because of their same sex adoptive parents. It's a shame, for sure, that children are less forgiving than most of us in this respect but maybe (especially with the gift of hindsight), that child will prefer to endure that than spend the rest of his or her childhood drifting from care-home to foster-home.

The system is open to abuse from both homosexual and heterosexual couples - so if one child could be abused due to adoption schemes in the UK, should we stop all adoptions.

Of course not. Your argument stinks.


I also think your argument stinks. It is not natural to have children brought up with two 'parents' who are of the same sex. I think there are few exceptions to this. Since when did stating your opinion become homophobic? I will RELUCTANTLY agree to this when all the other european countries comply with this ruling. I wonder how Italy stands on this ruling?:whistling
Stating your opinion becomes homophobic when the opinion stated is homophobic.

FYI.


I didn't realise that your agreement on a subject depended on whether all the other countries in Europe also agree to it. What kind of criteria is that? I normally make my mind up on something without having to wait for the likes of Albania to declare its stance.

Btw, my argument isn't just that you're a homophobe (altho that is glaringly obvious) it's that same-sex parents are just as unlikely to abuse an adoptive child as male/female parents.

My thoughts on the suitability of gay couples as adoptive parents wasn't mentioned. Don't know if you managed to glean that.

[Ava Estelle]

Not exactly surprising is it, given that it is entirely consistent with the Churches dogma and teachings .....


Any other stance would actually be a bit mental. "We believe that your lifestyle is wrong ... please have a child.". Nope don't see how that would work. It will be a shame when they are forced to close the agencies rather than compromise their beliefs.


So the homophobic dogma of the catholic church is more important than finding a loving home for an orphaned or abandoned child?

Just the sort of thing you'd expect from a church who would see millions die from AIDS rather than advise them to use condoms.

[bigboab]

I also think your argument stinks. It is not natural to have children brought up with two 'parents' who are of the same sex. I think there are few exceptions to this. Since when did stating your opinion become homophobic? I will RELUCTANTLY agree to this when all the other european countries comply with this ruling. I wonder how Italy stands on this ruling?:whistling
Stating your opinion becomes homophobic when the opinion stated is homophobic.

FYI.


I didn't realise that your agreement on a subject depended on whether all the other countries in Europe also agree to it. What kind of criteria is that? I normally make my mind up on something without having to wait for the likes of Albania to declare its stance.

Btw, my argument isn't just that you're a homophobe (altho that is glaringly obvious) it's that same-sex parents are just as unlikely to abuse an adoptive child as male/female parents.

My thoughts on the suitability of gay couples as adoptive parents wasn't mentioned. Don't know if you managed to glean that.

Tell us your thoughts on the issue then. The reason I will hold back to see what other nations think is to get a consensus of opinion. You are just being pedantic when you suggest wait for Albania. If a consensus agrees with this ruling, then so shall I.:)

I am sick fed up with this country rushing to adopt EU rules and suggestions. Especially when the majority of the 'laws' favour the minority rather than the majority. If I may go off thread a wee bit. It has just been announced in Scotland that Scottish prisoners are to be given £1000 each because their 'human rights' were violated when they were not allowed to vote in a Scottish election. What about the human rights of their victims?

[manker]

Stating your opinion becomes homophobic when the opinion stated is homophobic.

FYI.


I didn't realise that your agreement on a subject depended on whether all the other countries in Europe also agree to it. What kind of criteria is that? I normally make my mind up on something without having to wait for the likes of Albania to declare its stance.

Btw, my argument isn't just that you're a homophobe (altho that is glaringly obvious) it's that same-sex parents are just as unlikely to abuse an adoptive child as male/female parents.

My thoughts on the suitability of gay couples as adoptive parents wasn't mentioned. Don't know if you managed to glean that.

Tell us your thoughts on the issue then. The reason I will hold back to see what other nations think is to get a consensus of opinion. You are just being pedantic when you suggest wait for Albania. If a consensus agrees with this ruling, then so shall I.:)

I am sick fed up with this country rushing to adopt EU rules and suggestions. Especially when the majority of the 'laws' favour the minority rather than the majority. If I may go off thread a wee bit. It has just been announced in Scotland that Scottish prisoners are to be given £1000 each because their 'human rights' were violated when they were not allowed to vote in a Scottish election. What about the human rights of their victims?
:blink:

If you're 'sick fed up' with this country adopting EU rules and suggestions, why are you eager to go with the ruling this time.

Is it because you feel that the consensus will be to your liking.

[100%]

@Bigboab your first argument shows sadly much naivety. I Never thought i would see you push this mentality.

..although indeed it is not "natural", in the extent of it is indeed not possible for the same sex to produce a child.

the church is hereby discriminating against "love".

we are far away from living in the Bush,
please visit your local highway at around 4pm for "natural" confirmation.


.

[bigboab]

Tell us your thoughts on the issue then. The reason I will hold back to see what other nations think is to get a consensus of opinion. You are just being pedantic when you suggest wait for Albania. If a consensus agrees with this ruling, then so shall I.:)

I am sick fed up with this country rushing to adopt EU rules and suggestions. Especially when the majority of the 'laws' favour the minority rather than the majority. If I may go off thread a wee bit. It has just been announced in Scotland that Scottish prisoners are to be given £1000 each because their 'human rights' were violated when they were not allowed to vote in a Scottish election. What about the human rights of their victims?
:blink:

If you're 'sick fed up' with this country adopting EU rules and suggestions, why are you eager to go with the ruling this time.

Is it because you feel that the consensus will be to your liking.

What the hell are you on? I have said that I would reluctantly accept the ruling if it was against my opinion. As I would with any consensus.

We are never going to agree on this Manker. I dont know if we have opposite opinions on this subject as you seem unwilling to give us your opinion. Everybody does not agree with every law that is passed. They have no option but accept them or elect a government that will rescind them.

Skizo. I am not alone or 'pushing' this. The two main religions in the UK are of the same opinion. I would be willing to bet that the Islamic religion is also against this.

P.S. I am not religious in the 'Faith' sense.:noes:

[manker]

:blink:

If you're 'sick fed up' with this country adopting EU rules and suggestions, why are you eager to go with the ruling this time.

Is it because you feel that the consensus will be to your liking.

What the hell are you on? I have said that I would reluctantly accept the ruling if it was against my opinion. As I would with any consensus.

We are never going to agree on this Manker. I dont know if we have opposite opinions on this subject as you seem unwilling to give us your opinion. Everybody does not agree with every law that is passed. They have no option but accept them or elect a government that will rescind them.

Skizo. I am not alone or 'pushing' this. The two main religions in the UK are of the same opinion. I would be willing to bet that the Islamic religion is also against this.

P.S. I am not religious in the 'Faith' sense.:noes:
Oh, well done, Boab. You'll abide by it if it becomes law -- that's a whole different kettle of fish to agreeing with it. Which is what you said in the first instance.

My quarrel with you isn't to do with gay couples adopting, there are legitimate reasons as to why it would be more desirable if a child was housed with heterosexual adoptive parents (but definitely not to the point of disallowing gay adoption altogether) -- it's to do with your downright bigoted opinion that a gay couple would be more likely to sexually abuse a child than a heterosexual couple.

It is a view held by ignorant people.



Oh, and why are you talking to Skizo :ermm:

[bigboab]

What the hell are you on? I have said that I would reluctantly accept the ruling if it was against my opinion. As I would with any consensus.

We are never going to agree on this Manker. I dont know if we have opposite opinions on this subject as you seem unwilling to give us your opinion. Everybody does not agree with every law that is passed. They have no option but accept them or elect a government that will rescind them.

Skizo. I am not alone or 'pushing' this. The two main religions in the UK are of the same opinion. I would be willing to bet that the Islamic religion is also against this.

P.S. I am not religious in the 'Faith' sense.:noes:
Oh, well done, Boab. You'll abide by it if it becomes law -- that's a whole different kettle of fish to agreeing with it. Which is what you said in the first instance.

My quarrel with you isn't to do with gay couples adopting, there are legitimate reasons as to why it would be more desirable if a child was housed with heterosexual adoptive parents (but definitely not to the point of disallowing gay adoption altogether) -- it's to do with your downright bigoted opinion that a gay couple would be more likely to sexually abuse a child than a heterosexual couple.

It is a view held by ignorant people.



Oh, and why are you talking to Skizo :ermm:

My mistake. I meant 100%. I do make them.:)

As this is a new concept then we are all ignorant as to the outcome.
What about the children who will lose out if the heads of religions close their Adoption Agencies rather than be forced to comply with the new laws of adoption.

As you seem up to date with the concept of homosexuality and this type of adoption could you advise me on any books to read that would get rid of my ignorance. :)

[Biggles]

There have been a whole spate of "issues" raised recently associated with religious matters from blooming headscarves, crosses, schools and now adoption.

The Catholic Church is involved in about 4% of adoptions nationwide - not exactly a main player. The question therefore has to be how often would this actually be an issue? It is very hard hard to adopt a child and there are umpteen checks in place. I can't see too many gay couples approaching Muslim of Catholic Bodies in the first instance to explore adoption possibilities given the antipathy they clearly have.

One could argue, therefore that that well known Albanian, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and others within the Church heirarchy were attempting to undermine a bill with they were fundamentaly opposed to in its entirety.

At the end of the day are older children adopted if they are unhappy with the prospective home? There is a big shortage of young children available for adoption and consequently unlikely to feature prominently in this issue.

Is an older child better off in a home till 16 and left to fend for him/herself thereafter or are they better off with adoptive parents (of whatever hue)? Do they get a say in the matter or are others going to decide regardless of the aspirations of the children?

The sad fact is that if heterosexuals were happy to adopt older children then this would be unlikely to be an issue because there would be no children to adopt. They are not and there are. Those fundandamentally opposed to this should look to themselves and what they are prepared to do rather than complain about what others are prepared to do on behalf of those children.

[vidcc]

I am thinking about the children involved. The abuse the will receive at the school. Make no mistake, other children wont be long in telling and bullying them about their situation.
It's an often used argument but IMO just smoke and mirrors to justify the bigotry
Bullies choose any target. Should we ban mixed race couples, should we ban poor people that can't afford the latest style of sneakers, should we ban people of certain religious beliefs? the list goes on.
No matter what there will always be bullying in schools, that's the nature of children (generalisation). This is because kids are ignorant and yet to learn.

Your argument says we should give in to the bully.

Let's keep the nerdy kids out of school, let's keep the kid with braces or spots out of school.

Perhaps we should ban bigots from being adoptive parents as they are the ones instilling the hatred of anyone different into the children. The kids are not the problem here, the adults are.


Not least, if there is the chance that ONE child could be abused sexually through these adoptions, then that is one child too many.

We are all aware, if not we should be, that paedophiles go out of their way to get in contact with children. Some become Scout Leaders, P.E. Teachers and Music Teachers, some even become Clergymen solely to feed their paedophilic desires.

There has already been cases of children being molested by paedophilic foster parents. At the extreme I can see this as a chance to abuse children on a large, even an organized scale.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5109518.stm?ls

As for the genuine gay couples who would make good parents. To them I say, tough. We are all suffering daily through the actions of minorities.

Sorry Boab but I am with maker on this one. There have been many cases of heterosexual abuse. You are singling out a whole group of people and attaching them to a crime that they have nothing to do with and don't hold the heterosexual parents to the same standard.. I cannot see how that connection could be based on anything other than homophobia.

There is no connection between homosexuality and paedophilia.

[Chip Monk]

Not exactly surprising is it, given that it is entirely consistent with the Churches dogma and teachings .....


Any other stance would actually be a bit mental. "We believe that your lifestyle is wrong ... please have a child.". Nope don't see how that would work. It will be a shame when they are forced to close the agencies rather than compromise their beliefs.


So the homophobic dogma of the catholic church is more important than finding a loving home for an orphaned or abandoned child?




Yup, to them it is. As it is for the Church of England and, as others have stated, almost certainly the Muslim Faith as well. In fact, here's a possibility, could it be that all of the major faiths in this country, if they ran adoption agencies, would take the same stance. I think that's quite likely.

I would be very surprised if any religion which teaches that homosexuality is wrong would also be willing to give children to homosexual couples. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Here's the thing Bill, I have no problem whatsoever with gay couples adopting. Provided they are subject to the same checks as heterosexual couples and that they are suitable to be adoptive parents. However that does not stop me understanding why any group which is opposed to homosexuality would object to assisting them in the adoption process.

[Chip Monk]

Sorry Boab but I am with maker on this one.

Praise the Lord, vidcc has seen the light.

[bigboab]

Sorry Boab but I am with maker on this one.

Praise the Lord, vidcc has seen the light.

:lol:

One thing in all this that has not been broached, yet. What about the mental abuse to the child in the adopted home. What is the child going to think when their parents are having sex or just petting? Please dont tell me they are not going to notice.

Not off topic. I just found out late last year. I have a very religious nephew who was asked to be stud to two women that stayed together, somehere in England. He duly obliged and they both now have a child. Why did they not approach me first?:lol:

[manker]

Oh, well done, Boab. You'll abide by it if it becomes law -- that's a whole different kettle of fish to agreeing with it. Which is what you said in the first instance.

My quarrel with you isn't to do with gay couples adopting, there are legitimate reasons as to why it would be more desirable if a child was housed with heterosexual adoptive parents (but definitely not to the point of disallowing gay adoption altogether) -- it's to do with your downright bigoted opinion that a gay couple would be more likely to sexually abuse a child than a heterosexual couple.

It is a view held by ignorant people.



Oh, and why are you talking to Skizo :ermm:

My mistake. I meant 100%. I do make them.:)

As this is a new concept then we are all ignorant as to the outcome.
What about the children who will lose out if the heads of religions close their Adoption Agencies rather than be forced to comply with the new laws of adoption.

As you seem up to date with the concept of homosexuality and this type of adoption could you advise me on any books to read that would get rid of my ignorance. :)I'd be a very happy man if I could point toward a book which would completely rid you of homophobia.

Unfortunately, I've never had the need to read such a book and thus know of no such publication.

Maybe you could make a request in Book-world (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/f-books-comics-34/).

[manker]

One thing in all this that has not been broached, yet. What about the mental abuse to the child in the adopted home. What is the child going to think when their parents are having sex or just petting? Please dont tell me they are not going to notice.You go from bad to worse.

NEWSFLASH!!

Homophobia is not inherent -- it's taught by bigots and learned by the impressionable!


The children will have been brought up by a gay couple so they won't be homophobic. They won't be arsed if their parents display affection for one another.

If an older child is adopted, then I imagine that he or she will already have been told that this may happen and will be prepared for it - cos, like, that's what adoption agencies do.

'Mental abuse' :lol:

[bigboab]

One thing in all this that has not been broached, yet. What about the mental abuse to the child in the adopted home. What is the child going to think when their parents are having sex or just petting? Please dont tell me they are not going to notice.You go from bad to worse.

NEWSFLASH!!

Homophobia is not inherent -- it's taught by bigots and learned by the impressionable!


The children will have been brought up by a gay couple so they won't be homophobic. They won't be arsed if their parents display affection for one another.

If an older child is adopted, then I imagine that he or she will already have been told that this may happen and will be prepared for it - cos, like, that's what adoption agencies do.

'Mental abuse' :lol:

I'll do the jokes.:) I was thinking about the younger children being adopted, obviously. As Biggles says, the older children will be given the option. We hope.

[vidcc]

One thing in all this that has not been broached, yet. What about the mental abuse to the child in the adopted home. What is the child going to think when their parents are having sex or just petting? Please dont tell me they are not going to notice.


I think you know I disagree with the "abuse" premise, however, again I don't think that would be solely a homosexual problem. Many parents will have heard their children tell them to "get a room" ;)

That and we are just talking affection here, not actually having sex in front of the child......right? :unsure:

[bigboab]

One thing in all this that has not been broached, yet. What about the mental abuse to the child in the adopted home. What is the child going to think when their parents are having sex or just petting? Please dont tell me they are not going to notice.


I think you know I disagree with the "abuse" premise, however, again I don't think that would be solely a homosexual problem. Many parents will have heard their children tell them to "get a room" ;)

That and we are just talking affection here, not actually having sex in front of the child......right? :unsure:

I should hope that no one would even think of having sex in front of their children. It is not be nice only being able to think about sex.:cry:

[j2k4]

Insofar as I've been able to follow this thread, I was curious about how anyone would judge the viability/desirability of either of these two situations relative to the other:

1. An infant/child is adopted into the loving home of a heterosexual couple of Catholic faith.

2. An infant/child is adopted into the loving home of a homosexual male or female couple of no-or-indeterminate faith.

Discuss...

[vidcc]

Why not offer a choice between gay/straight catholics?


Why should faith or lack of have any bearing whatsoever if it came to a choice between two candidates? (which given the shortage of candidates willing to take on an adoption is unlikely)
Having faith one way or another doesn't equate to being more or less wholesome person or a good or bad parent.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Why should faith or lack of have any bearing whatsoever if it came to a choice between two candidates?

I'm only guessing here, however I would venture that a Catholic adoption society would give preference to Christians over non-Christians.

Again this is not a value judgement, it's just that for them to take any other position would be ludicrous.

And also, once again, I suspect a Muslim adoption ... you get the point.

[MagicNakor]

Shall we flip it?

One's a loving home with a homosexual Catholic couple.
One's a loving home with a heterosexual atheist couple.

Really, the only qualifier that's relevant is the loving home.

:shuriken:

[Mr JP Fugley]

Shall we flip it?

One's a loving home with a homosexual Catholic couple.
One's a loving home with a heterosexual atheist couple.

Really, the only qualifier that's relevant is the loving home.

:shuriken:

I take your point, however what we are talking about is adoption agencies deciding upon who should be allowed to adopt children. Your scenario can really only be after this has taken place and sufficient time has passed to establish whether it is a loving home or not. Therefore any adoption agency must have a set of criteria, to try to evaluate whether or not prospective parents are suitable. This is true whether it has religious affiliations or not.

It seems obvious to me that any religious organisation would use it's own teachings as a major part of that vetting process. I can't really see how they would do anything else. Whether that's "right" or not is another matter.

[vidcc]

Why should faith or lack of have any bearing whatsoever if it came to a choice between two candidates?

I'm only guessing here, however I would venture that a Catholic adoption society would give preference to Christians over non-Christians.

Again this is not a value judgement, it's just that for them to take any other position would be ludicrous.

And also, once again, I suspect a Muslim adoption ... you get the point. While I understand what you are saying with regard to specific religious preferences of specific religious agencies the post I was responding to made no assumption as to the religious status of the adoption agency.

He did however frame it in a way that suggested there were no gay catholics, which is untrue.
Added to this question

Why not offer a choice between gay/straight catholics?
why not ask to choose between a gay catholic couple and a heterosexual couple of no or indeterminate faith?

That's why (along with the reason I gave) I asked what faith had to do with it.
I appreciate you may point out that even though there are gay people of faith that it's still "sin", but "sin" or not living by the doctrines is not unique to gay people.

Either way any agency has to work within government rules and guidelines, it's not an unregulated system.

[vidcc]

Should the natural parents have any say in what sort of home the child ends up in?
Ok this is not always possible and takes no account of the reason the child is up for adoption in the first place.

I am thinking about cases where the parent was unable to raise the child, for example through terminal illness with no family.....It does happen. In these cases I think the wishes of the parent should be honoured.

[Busyman™]

The Catholic Church wants to discriminate against gay couples who want to use their adoption services, contrary to the law. They already discriminate against women, and cover up sexual abuse by gay clergy, but now they are bringing their prejudices out into the open.


Cabinet rejects exemption on gay adoptions

Compromise means Catholic church will not be given special treatment

Will Woodward and Severin Carrell
Thursday January 25, 2007
The Guardian

The Catholic church is almost certain to lose its battle for special treatment over gay adoption rules under a deal agreed by the cabinet to heal damaging divisions between senior ministers. Cabinet sources said the new proposals would require Catholic adoption agencies to consider gay couples - or close down - after a reasonable delay that would allow them to ensure that the children in their care are properly dealt with.

Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,1998017,00.html)

It's against what the Church teaches. Wtf?!!

Gays should fuck off and use another agency then.:1eye:

[Ava Estelle]

Corrected!


Insofar as I've been able to follow this thread, I was curious about how anyone would judge the viability/desirability of either of these four situations relative to the other:

1. An infant/child is adopted into the loving home of a heterosexual couple of Catholic or other faith.

2. An infant/child is adopted into the loving home of a homosexual male or female couple of Catholic or other faith.

3.An infant/child is adopted into the loving home of a heterosexual couple of no-or-indeterminate faith.

4. An infant/child is adopted into the loving home of a homosexual male or female couple of no-or-indeterminate faith.



Discuss...

[Ava Estelle]

It's against what the Church teaches. Wtf?!!

Gays should fuck off and use another agency then.:1eye:

What about if the adoption agency wanted to discriminate against black people, would that be OK, as long as it's what they teach?

[Busyman™]

I appreciate you may point out that even though there are gay people of faith that it's still "sin", but "sin" or not living by the doctrines is not unique to gay people.

Professing that one is gay is an entire lifestyle choice that is contradictory to Church doctrine so I'd understand the adoption agency saying to fuck off.

I also understand the law not giving an exemption to a Catholic adoption agency. Being a church is one thing but they are expected to conduct themselves within the law when it doesn't involve the church specifically.

[Busyman™]

It's against what the Church teaches. Wtf?!!

Gays should fuck off and use another agency then.:1eye:

What about if the adoption agency wanted to discriminate against black people, would that be OK, as long as it's what they teach?

You posted while I posted. Read above.

[vidcc]

Professing that one is gay is an entire lifestyle choice that is contradictory to Church doctrine so I'd understand the adoption agency saying to fuck off.

Is being heterosexual a "lifestyle choice"?

[Busyman™]

Professing that one is gay is an entire lifestyle choice that is contradictory to Church doctrine so I'd understand the adoption agency saying to fuck off.

Is being heterosexual a "lifestyle choice"?

Ahh you got me there. Obliterate the word choice or insert can be for is.

[Ava Estelle]

Is being heterosexual a "lifestyle choice"?

Ahh you got me there. Obliterate the word choice or insert can be for is.



Professing that one can be gay is an entire lifestyle choice that is contradictory to Church doctrine so I'd understand the adoption agency saying to fuck off.

That makes even less sense! :lol:

[MagicNakor]

It seems obvious to me that any religious organisation would use it's own teachings as a major part of that vetting process. I can't really see how they would do anything else. Whether that's "right" or not is another matter.

So which is the greater sin: homosexuality or heathenism? I'm genuinely curious; I know that there's a ranking system.

:shuriken:

[ilw]

It's against what the Church teaches. Wtf?!!

Gays should fuck off and use another agency then.:1eye:

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.

[bigboab]

Are adoption agencies required to give a reason for any refusal?

[Chip Monk]

It's against what the Church teaches. Wtf?!!

Gays should fuck off and use another agency then.:1eye:

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.

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.

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.

[Ava Estelle]

If their option is to do something which is against their teachings, then I think they have no option at all.

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.

[Chip Monk]

If their option is to do something which is against their teachings, then I think they have no option at all.

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.

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".

[vidcc]

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".
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 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5406552.stm)

I will not post the entire link

Many 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?
I mean this isn't just deciding something isn't a sin, it's changing the way the "afterlife" works :blink:

[Busyman]

Ahh you got me there. Obliterate the word choice or insert can be for is.



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.

That makes even less sense! :lol:

Fixed:dry:

[Mr JP Fugley]

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 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5406552.stm)

I will not post the entire link

Many 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?
I mean this isn't just deciding something isn't a sin, it's changing the way the "afterlife" works :blink:

I take your point, however that's not changing teachings to better reflect modern society.

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.

[vidcc]

I take your point, however that's not changing teachings to better reflect modern society.

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.
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.

[Mr JP Fugley]

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/citizenship/mfl/homosexuality/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.

[Mr JP Fugley]

... that make my goat chew.

:lol: never heard that before.

[j2k4]

Corrected!


Insofar as I've been able to follow this thread, I was curious about how anyone would judge the viability/desirability of either of these four situations relative to the other:

1. An infant/child is adopted into the loving home of a heterosexual couple of Catholic or other faith.

2. An infant/child is adopted into the loving home of a homosexual male or female couple of Catholic or other faith.

3.An infant/child is adopted into the loving home of a heterosexual couple of no-or-indeterminate faith.

4. An infant/child is adopted into the loving home of a homosexual male or female couple of no-or-indeterminate faith.



Discuss...

You miss my point entirely.

Let's look at this a different way-

A Catholic agency works to place orphaned/adoptable children/infants with Catholic families.

Another agency specializes in placing children from war- and strife-torn, poverty-stricken foreign countries.

A third works only with hard-to-place cases; kids with mental/physical afflictions or other special needs.

Yet another is a non-denominational, non-specializing agency willing to cover the whole spectrum of possibilities/eventualities.

There are others as well; there is no shortage of children in distress and needing placement with loving families, and there will always be more children than can be accomodated by existing agencies.

Into the breech steps a court (the STATE!) willing to restrict/curtail/end the activities of the Catholic agency in the name of "rights/access violations".

This is freedom?

This helps gays?

Children?

Funny, too, how the separation of church and state only works in one direction...

[vidcc]

Do you think that the private sector should be free from state control/regulation when it comes to children?

[MagicNakor]

So which is the greater sin: homosexuality or heathenism? I'm genuinely curious; I know that there's a ranking system.

:shuriken:

I'm quoting myself because I'm still curious. Evidentially both sins will end you up in Hell, but does breaking the First Commandment count as a lesser sin when compared to homosexuality?

I would imagine that while the Church would prefer to place children in a God-fearing heterosexual home, it would stand to reason that the gay Catholic home would be preferable over the straight atheist one.

:shuriken:

[Mr JP Fugley]

So which is the greater sin: homosexuality or heathenism? I'm genuinely curious; I know that there's a ranking system.

:shuriken:

I'm quoting myself because I'm still curious. Evidentially both sins will end you up in Hell, but does breaking the First Commandment count as a lesser sin when compared to homosexuality?



Did you read my last, or the words of Cardinal Hume. It might be a good idea to understand what the Catholic Church teaches with regard to the subject, before asking which is the lesser sin.

Oh and I think you may have meant evidently, but that's not important right now.

Oh and another small point, I think you probably also meant either, rather than both. Forget it.

[vidcc]

Oh and I think you may have meant evidently, but that's not important right now.

Oh and another small point, I think you probably also meant either, rather than both. Forget it.
Jp was around at the same time jesus was......I have the video


sxzXDNEAKW4
:rolleyes:
;)

[MagicNakor]

I'm quoting myself because I'm still curious. Evidentially both sins will end you up in Hell, but does breaking the First Commandment count as a lesser sin when compared to homosexuality?



Did you read my last, or the words of Cardinal Hume. It might be a good idea to understand what the Catholic Church teaches with regard to the subject, before asking which is the lesser sin.

Yes, and neither address my question. Can you answer it?


Oh and I think you may have meant evidently, but that's not important right now.

I'm doped up with painkillers after recovering from surgery. What better way to spend time than devising games? You missed the first one. ;)

:shuriken:

[ilw]

tbh i have no idea about how adoption agencies work, how does a kid end up in a catholic adoption agency? Is it because the parent(s) are catholic and want their child to be catholic (i.e. they don't take in any kids who are abandoned or are removed by social services etc)? Do catholic adoption agencies posiitively discriminate towards/only give children to catholic adoptive parents?
Anyone have a clue?

[Ava Estelle]

You miss my point entirely.I do now, what was the point of this post? You say, "A Catholic agency works to place orphaned/adoptable children/infants with Catholic families.", well gay couples can be catholic too, and considered a 'family' under British law.



Funny, too, how the separation of church and state only works in one direction... There is no separation of church and state in Britain. The church sits in the House of Lords, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen by the Prime Minister.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Funny, too, how the separation of church and state only works in one direction... There is no separation of church and state in Britain. The church sits in the House of Lords, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen by the Prime Minister.

To be accurate, that would be the Church of England which is joined to the State. The Catholic Church is in fact separate from the State, I believe the Act of Union is very specific on that point.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Did you read my last, or the words of Cardinal Hume. It might be a good idea to understand what the Catholic Church teaches with regard to the subject, before asking which is the lesser sin.

Yes, and neither address my question. Can you answer it?



I'm only doing this because it's you. It does address your question. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual relations are a sin, the physical acts are a sin. It teaches that those who wish to carry out homosexual acts should remain celibate (in that particular activity). That's basically it, there's no "homosexuality is a sin" about it.

This may explain it better. The Church considers adultery to be a sin. However it does not teach that fancying a burd at your work is a sin. Just swap "another bloke" for "a burd at your work".

And also, brain aids is no excuse for poor English.

[Ava Estelle]

There is no separation of church and state in Britain. The church sits in the House of Lords, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen by the Prime Minister.

To be accurate, that would be the Church of England which is joined to the State. The Catholic Church is in fact separate from the State, I believe the Act of Union is very specific on that point.

That's partly right I think, I'm not too sure, but isn't the Church of Scotland established in Scotland, and don't they also sit in the House of Lords?

The only references to Catholicism I can remember from the Act of Union was the banning of Catholics from the throne.

[Mr JP Fugley]

To be accurate, that would be the Church of England which is joined to the State. The Catholic Church is in fact separate from the State, I believe the Act of Union is very specific on that point.

That's partly right I think, I'm not too sure, but isn't the Church of Scotland established in Scotland, and don't they also sit in the House of Lords?

The only references to Catholicism I can remember from the Act of Union was the banning of Catholics from the throne.

The Act guaranteed that the Church of Scotland would remain the established church in Scotland. I don't think they are represented in The Lords tho', but I'm not sure.

It does indeed ban Catholics from the throne. Specifically Catholics and no other group. Did you also see the uproar when T Blair attended Catholic mass with his Catholic Wife and Children, he I believe is Anglican. It was really rather funny.

I've got a bet on that he quietly turns Jungle Jim when he leaves power.

[bigboab]

That's partly right I think, I'm not too sure, but isn't the Church of Scotland established in Scotland, and don't they also sit in the House of Lords?

The only references to Catholicism I can remember from the Act of Union was the banning of Catholics from the throne.

The Act guaranteed that the Church of Scotland would remain the established church in Scotland. I don't think they are represented in The Lords tho', but I'm not sure.

It does indeed ban Catholics from the throne. Specifically Catholics and no other group. Did you also see the uproar when T Blair attended Catholic mass with his Catholic Wife and Children, he I believe is Anglican. It was really rather funny.

I've got a bet on that he quietly turns Jungle Jim when he leaves power.

I think he might wait until he completes a few USA tours first.:)

[Ava Estelle]

It does indeed ban Catholics from the throne. Specifically Catholics and no other group.

Actually, there are two other groups, those who marry Catholics, and bastards.

Line of Succession to the British Throne. (http://www.britroyals.com/succession.htm)

[Mr JP Fugley]

It does indeed ban Catholics from the throne. Specifically Catholics and no other group.

Actually, there are two other groups, those who marry Catholics, and bastards.

Line of Succession to the British Throne. (http://www.britroyals.com/succession.htm)

:lol:

That's OK well.

[j2k4]

There is no separation of church and state in Britain. The church sits in the House of Lords, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen by the Prime Minister.

To be accurate, that would be the Church of England which is joined to the State. The Catholic Church is in fact separate from the State, I believe the Act of Union is very specific on that point.

All of which points up the difference between the U.K. and the U.S., which difference seems to be clouding this debate and rendering it untenable.

That's it for me. :dabs:

[vidcc]

It boils down to this.

Adoption agencies are controlled by government. You can't set up an adoption agency without approval by the government, (if you do then you are not in the adoption business you are a human trafficker). This is to ensure the safety of the children. It would be wrong not to regulate such a concern.
Government sets the rules, it would be wrong to apply the rules selectively. Expecting religious beliefs to be an opt out of the regulations is demanding special treatment. You may agree with special treatment in this case but then you probably will not for a different case. The best way is to apply the rules across the board.

The cries of the state interfering with the church are pointless, they are not interfering with the church at all, they are regulating an adoption agency. Who runs that agency is irrelevant.

[Mr JP Fugley]

The best way is to apply the rules across the board.



I agree, it is perhaps unfortunate that doesn't happen in so many other cases.

Church adoption agencies have asked for an exemption and didn't get it. They will have to follow the rules and will stop doing it.

[anak]

the catholic adoption centers have a right to belief. the government is preventing the adoption centers to exercise their beliefs. that is not right.

[Chip Monk]

You don't get involved in these sorts of discussions because you talk nonsensical drivel. Here's one bit

"I think it is because religious folk are forced to think that their was is the best way" why would anyone think differently. That would be mental.

Here's another

"And if someone who was qualified as an able parent turns out to be a secret pedophile, then oh well. shit happens." That's your answer, shit happens.