The Catholic Gay Adoption Agency

[Slick]

I strongly believe that there should be an opt out. First of all I don't think that having gay parents would be good for a child, gay unions are statistically less stable than marriages and the child is likely to face bullying when growing up. In most playgrounds, 'gay' is used as the primary form of insulting other kids. That's not right, but its a fact that it happens, and you would be placing the child under unnecessary bullying by providing them with gay parents.

But all that aside, gay people will be able to adopt from regular adoption agencies. I believe it is unfair to force the catholic adoption agencies to let gay people adopt. However PC you want to get about it, the act of homosexuality is a sin as written in the bible, which is indisputable. Now this is not to say that catholics have a right to hate gay people etc. the church takes the line 'hate the sin, love the sinner'. But you are forcing people to go against their religious beliefs by making them place a child in what they believe their God has said to be a sinful household. I believe this is going to lead to the closure of catholic adoption agencies, which is a sad thing as they provide a very valuable service.

[IBM]

I like to dispute the bible all the time.

[Rack]

That's all well and good, but we don't live in 100AD any more. It is discriminating, no matter what your source (bible, Korhan, whatever), and based on outdated principles not supported by law.

A couple's ability to adopt is based on a case-by-case basis, if instability was a problem (heterosexual or homosexual) then they probably wouldn't be able to adopt based on the family analysis.

My fiance is a social worker in child protection and has adopted children out to families, from hearing how hard it is to find adopting parents, to judge a family on their sexuality sits alongside bullying for it's childishness IMO.

[pollaxe]

^ I pretty much agree with what Rack said.

The problem is most Churches have backed themselves into a corner over such things. There are bits of scripture they enforce and bits they ignore and there are traditions and dogma which means they behave/believe in a certain way.

Ultimately though, the Church has to follow the laws of the state.

JMHO.

[nichomach]

^Agreed (well, to a certain extent) - prawn sandwich anyone?

[revol68]

I fail to see why the catholic church hasn't been banned from going near children in the first play, if any other organisation had the same record for child abuse as those scum it would have been closed down years ago.

The catholic church has been involved in paedophilia, forced labour and adoption, the brutalisation and indoctrination of millions of children, my own ma was put in one of it's institutions when she was pregnant as a teenager and forced to give the child up for adoption.

For an institution that actively covered up paedophilia in it's rank to be allowed to run adoption agencies is a disgrace, for it to preach sermon to gay couples desperately wanting to love and raise a child is the height of hypocrisy.

[JPreston]

Gay people being better educated and earning more is a myth, along with gay people being funnier, more outgoing, and more fashionable...

I see what you're saying but I didn't make it up; how about gay people are more likely to move to cities and people in cities earn more, also cities being complex environments thus stimulate the mind more and raise intelligence compared to a slack-jawed yokel standing in a field all day staring at clouds. Also since men earn more than women a household with two male earners will have more cash lying around. Anyhow, it's not important

...bullied people tend to grow up to be sensitive understanding people...

Actually according to that Berkeley study they grow up to be socially conservative - google "whiny+insecure+children"

As regards JPreston's citing of the BA "cross" case, that is not relevant; that case involved members of certain faiths being allowed to wear the outward symbols of that faith (which the churches supported) while a Christian was denied that same right....

What, so it's wrong to discriminate against christians but when christians want to discriminate against other people the law should be changed to accomodate them . Looks like they are against special treatment for other religions, but all for special treatment of their own. What's even worse is that they are actually trying to influence the law here, not just some company's dress code.

However PC you want to get about it, the act of homosexuality is a sin as written in the bible, which is ...

...totally irrelevant. This is a legal issue, we all have to obey the law as opposed to the teachings of whatever arbitrary religion that some people want to force on others. Besides the bible also says that the value of pi is exactly 3.00000000, maybe we should start another thread debating that one.

The catholic church has been involved in paedophilia, forced labour and adoption, the brutalisation and indoctrination of millions of children, my own ma was put in one of it's institutions when she was pregnant as a teenager and forced to give the child up for adoption.

They also collaborated with the Nazis throughout occupied Europe, and today work very hard to negate AIDS awareness programmes throughout sub-Saharan Africa. But, this is a general point that goes beyond any one religion, they all require acts that are incompatible with civilised society but thankfully the law has never been asked to made exceptions for them....until now....

[nichomach]

What, so it's wrong to discriminate against christians but when christians want to discriminate against other people the law should be changed to accomodate them . Looks like they are against special treatment for other religions, but all for special treatment of their own. What's even worse is that they are actually trying to influence the law here, not just some company's dress code.

So...you didn't actually READ the part where I said that I believed that there SHOULDN'T be an exception for them then? *shakes head* Although it's worth noting that in the BA case Christians wanted to be treated the same as members of other faiths; the Church supported the rights of others to wear the symbols of their faiths.

I reiterate what I said earlier:
"It is legitimate to argue for an exception, and it is NOT advocating the breaking of the law, but that said, I am NOT in favour of an exception in this case." RTFP

[JPreston]

That's very magnanimous of you; conceding that christians do need to obey the law after all.

In the british airways case, christians argued against special treatment of muslims and orthodox jews and sikhs and I don't know who else (it's not quite valid to equate a turban with an unnecessary badge the wearing of which is nowhere mandated and which could just as easily been worn under her blouse, but I will let you apply your interpretation because it's the christian thing to do).

Then two weeks later christians demand special treatment of their own, and claim they have the right to exempt themselves from the law of the land as well as from company dress codes. You maintain this is not hypocrisy but cannot articulate why. Next week presumably christians will be campaigning for voodoo priests to be allowed to raise the dead and jihadi suicide bombers to be allowed to do their thing, after all an individuals religious beliefs take precedence over both the law and the rights of others.

Oh, and "RTFP"? You would do well to remember WWJD in future.

[SilentDeath]

the act of homosexuality is a sin as written in the bible, which is indisputable. Now this is not to say that catholics have a right to hate gay people etc. the church takes the line 'hate the sin, love the sinner'.

Your bible sucks. You should burn it.
It was relevant once, about 1000 years ago, but then there are plenty of other religions that did it better. Whether its a sin or not doesn't matter. Sin is a fancy word that has no relevance in law. Hence if it is a sin, it is not illegal.

Christianity as a religion is mostly made up of power hungry old men and social-whores* that believe every word in a veeery old irrelevant book. Social whores should be ignored in any attempt for decision making... that includes everyone that watches big broker, or follows football/other sports too closely (since it is mostly a social/managerial past time...)

Back to the topic, I dont think the church should be allowed any exception, the thought of a christian adoption agency makes me feel sick anyway - since there will probably be a bias to only let christian parents adopt and force all the children into christianity at a early age. + all the other stuff about the christian adoption agency said above.

and WTF is ff spell checker making christianity start with a capitial its NOT a name.


* being a definition of culture that probably already existed, but I havent heard used before and probably is not the same as my meaning.

[nichomach]

In the british airways case, christians argued against special treatment of muslims and orthodox jews and sikhs and I don't know who else (it's not quite valid to equate a turban with an unnecessary badge the wearing of which is nowhere mandated and which could just as easily been worn under her blouse, but I will let you apply your interpretation because it's the christian thing to do).

Factually incorrect; as per Rowan Williams:

“ … I said some weeks ago that I regarded it as absolutely basic that people of any faith should have the right to display the signs of their faith commitment in public; that’s the point from which I start."

CofE's website
As to whether it is "mandated", Christians are called upon to bear witness to their faith, and they may feel called to do that in a number of ways. Wearing the outward symbol of their faith may be one, as some Muslim women feel that their faith requires merely a hijab, and others may feel that a djilbab is required. I've argued in these forums for respect and consideration for other faiths' requirements. I see nothing hypocritical in supporting the same consideration for my own.

Then two weeks later christians demand special treatment of their own, and claim they have the right to exempt themselves from the law of the land as well as from company dress codes. You maintain this is not hypocrisy but cannot articulate why.

Factually incorrect as noted. And as already noted, I oppose the exception being asked for by the Roman Catholic church, and I am deeply disappointed by my own church's leadership supporting that request, especially in light of the fact that CofE adoption agencies already allow gay couples to adopt.

Next week presumably christians will be campaigning for voodoo priests to be allowed to raise the dead and jihadi suicide bombers to be allowed to do their thing, after all an individuals religious beliefs take precedence over both the law and the rights of others.

This is frankly ludicrous; the CofE has been supportive of the rights of other faiths, in so far as they do not involve harm to others. The church HAS expressed considerable concern over recent legislation on anti-terrorism, since it appears to have disproportionately impacted other faiths (see http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/te...relations.html ).
As far as the "takes precedence..." crap, at no point has any church leader in this debate suggested disobedience of or non-compliance with the law. As noted above, other special interest groups gain exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation if that legislation is fundamentally incompatible with their function, so it is legitimate to ask for an exemption. As it happens, I have already stated that I oppose the exemption being asked for, and am disappointed with my church leadership's support of it, in light of the fact that the exemption asked for is one that my own church has neither asked for nor currently would practice.

Oh, and "RTFP"? You would do well to remember WWJD in future.

What, Jesus was never angered by liars and people who misrepresented his faith? Ask the merchants cast out of the temple about that one; trust me, he used a lot more than harsh language to shift them.

[revol68]

I think i'd rather see a child adopted by Michael Jackson and his chimp mate Bubbles than be kept in any institution ran by the Catholic Church, I mean Michael Jackson is only suspected of buggering children.....

[Slick]

The catholic church has been involved in paedophilia, forced labour and adoption, the brutalisation and indoctrination of millions of children

Your bible sucks. You should burn it.

Christianity as a religion is mostly made up of power hungry old men and social-whores*

I think i'd rather see a child adopted by Michael Jackson and his chimp mate Bubbles than be kept in any institution ran by the Catholic Church, I mean Michael Jackson is only suspected of buggering children.....

These highly offensive comments demonstrate just how ignorant people are on these forums and the clear predjudices they hold. The only people being discriminated against here are catholics/christians. If I had said anything like the above comments about Islam or any other religion, I would have no doubt been banned, and possibly arrested. Of course the catholic church has had controversies in history, just like every other religious institution. Many atheists have also been involved in paedophilia in history, but would it effect your view on an athiest running an adoption agency? What you're talking about is completely against any Christian principles and to suggest it has any bearings on modern day catholicism is about the same as me saying "all germans are nazis".

[revol68]

These highly offensive comments demonstrate just how ignorant people are on these forums and the clear predjudices they hold. The only people being discriminated against here are catholics/christians. If I had said anything like the above comments about Islam or any other religion, I would have no doubt been banned, and possibly arrested. Of course the catholic church has had controversies in history, just like every other religious institution. Many atheists have also been involved in paedophilia in history, but would it effect your view on an athiest running an adoption agency? What you're talking about is completely against any Christian principles and to suggest it has any bearings on modern day catholicism is about the same as me saying "all germans are nazis".

No you see the catholic church is just not a religion like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or Christianity, rather it is an actual histroical institution and power structure.

The German people can't be blamed for all the sins of the Nazi party but if the Nazi was still pimping it's wares it would be fair enough to point out it's rather nasty history.

[theuncharmed]

I'm a christian.

I think that Gay couples should be allowed to adopt. I think much like how I was when I was a kiddie, it's a good chance to experiment.

We really don't know the full benefits or side affects of having gay parents and thus as yet cannot judge whether it is a good option or not. so I'm for seeing what happens.

As usual I'm a little shocked at the comments being blurted out in this thread. Try and stay objective

[IBM]

I think much like how I was when I was a kiddie, it's a good chance to experiment.

You scare me