The Catholic Gay Adoption Agency

[chrestomanci]

2) WTF is the govt doing paying my tax dollars to religious groups, instead of paying them direct to the appropriate state agency (that is somehow able to perform the same function without breaking any laws at all)?

Because it is cheaper. Charites get a lot of free or cheap labour compared with state run or private institutions.

A state run adoption agency would need to pay profesonal social workers to vet candidates, and administrators to keep track of the paperwork. They would need to pay market rents for their buildings. Most of the workers in a charity are volenters who do the work for nothing. It might be run out of a church or somewhere else where there is no rent to pay. They will be charging the state only their direct costs such as heating, millage and profesonal fees.

Having said that I am definatey against the blinkered attitue that the Catholic church is adopting. As David Cameron said on the radio yesterday moring, you might oppose gay adoption, but suppose you and your wife where killed suddenly, would you prefer your children went into an institution or to your brother and his partner who happen to be gay?

[Saracen]

Whatever's best for the kids.

Trouble is ... what is best?

Is being housed with a gay couple better for the kid? Better than what? What was the alternative? If the alternative was being raised in an orphanage, then yeah, it probably is better for the kid to be with the couple, gay or not. If, on the other hand, the alternative was a loving hetero couple, well, while I've no scientific basis for it, I rather suspect that, all other factors being equal, that would be the optimum solution.

I'm a little concerned that government seems to think that avoiding discrimination is more important than finding homes for the kids, even if it means losing Catholic adoption agencies altogether. It strikes me as being pig-headed for the sake of dogma, with some of our most vulnerable kids being the ones who'll end up paying the price.

And this garbage the government have been spouting about everyone having to obey the law is utter drivel. Exceptions on the basis of religious belief have been enshrined in law before (such as Sikhs and crash helmet law, though that is not the only example), and it could have been done again. Then, Catholic agencies would be obeying the law. It's about how you write the law.

Or a compromise could have been worked out whereby Catholic agencies worked in partnership with non-Catholic agencies in such a way that gay prospective adoptees worked with the partner, not the Catholics.

At the end of the day, I don't care WHO effin' organises the adoption, providing the kids best interests are paramount. But this law seems to me to be (if you'll excuse the pun) throwing out the baby with the bathwater, by forcing Catholic agencies to choose between going against their religious beliefs, breaking the law or giving up their good works for kids. I suspect it'll result in the latter.

And I'm sorry, but if it comes to legally protecting gay's rights to adopt, or legally protecting kids, it's the latter every time. This law fails those kids, badly.

I think the government has it's head buried firmly where the Sun don't shine. Still, I suppose licking their own tonsils makes a change from licking what most politicians usiually lick.

[Saracen]

....

Having said that I am definatey against the blinkered attitue that the Catholic church is adopting. As David Cameron said on the radio yesterday moring, you might oppose gay adoption, but suppose you and your wife where killed suddenly, would you prefer your children went into an institution or to your brother and his partner who happen to be gay?

As I understand it, though, the Catholics haven't been trying to prevent gays from adopting, merely from being forced to facilitate that themselves. There are other adoption agencies, so providing the Catholics with a way to continue operating still wouldn't prevent my gay brother (if I had one) from adopting my kids, in that scenario.

[madad2005]

I personally think the Church should of been exempt. No-one has problems with gays adopting children, but at least go through the process with a group whose morals you aren't challenging. I wouldn't demand to go to a car garage sponsored by the BNP who didn't want Italians or any other immigrants, just because I wanted my wheels re-aligned. I'm happy to take my business elsewhere.

[Rack]

And I'm sorry, but if it comes to legally protecting gay's rights to adopt, or legally protecting kids, it's the latter every time. This law fails those kids, badly.

I don't think this is about sacrificing a child's best interest, in fact it is the opposite. It is giving a child a larger chance of being adopted at all. And 'choosing' a different adoption agency? What about the child? What if the child's best possible chance at being adopted or finding suitable adopting parents get chucked out before they get a chance because they are gay?

Why should being adopted by a gay couple be worse than a hetro couple? Oh, domestic violence is so much higher in gay couples for a start... or maybe it's the other way round...?

A lot of people who are defending the catholics church to pre-judge a couple based on sexual orientation seem to already have it worked out themselves as well.

At the end of the day the Catholic Church needs to rethink it's stance on this if they want to move forward in the 21st century. It's institutions like the Catholic Church that are harbouring negative feelings towards parts of society based on a book written over 3000 years ago, and outdated by the same book later on.

I agree with the idea that if there is a group you are against providing a service you want, then avoid them. But this brings in so many other issues: the child's interest, bigoted views of a powerful and wealthy organisation.

[Saracen]

I don't think this is about sacrificing a child's best interest, in fact it is the opposite. It is giving a child a larger chance of being adopted at all. And 'choosing' a different adoption agency? What about the child? What if the child's best possible chance at being adopted or finding suitable adopting parents get chucked out before they get a chance because they are gay?

If, as apparently has already been happening, Catholic agencies refer gay couples to other agencies, then tyey aren't seeking to prevent gays from adopting. They're just saying that it's against their religious beliefs to facilitate that.

However, if the Catholic church are presented with the starlk choice of :-

1) act contrary to their beliefs
2) break the law
3) cease adoption agency operations

then they are likely to pick 3). How is that in the child's interests?

Yet if the law permitted them to do as they currently are doing, and refer gay couples to other agencies, then gays can still adopt and children still benefit from Cathloic agencies.

Why should being adopted by a gay couple be worse than a hetro couple? Oh, domestic violence is so much higher in gay couples for a start... or maybe it's the other way round...?

As I said, it's my belief that it's likely that having a mother and father is a better environment than not having it. But as I said, I have no scientific basis for that. It is, however, a view I've seen expressed in independent reports, but it's not one I'm qualified to assess or judge.

At the end of the day the Catholic Church needs to rethink it's stance on this if they want to move forward in the 21st century. It's institutions like the Catholic Church that are harbouring negative feelings towards parts of society based on a book written over 3000 years ago, and outdated by the same book later on.

Why do they need to?

They act on the basis of what they believe is the word of God, just like every other religious group. Personally, I think it's a load of cobblers, but I don't see why they should change their belief just because either you or I think it's cobblers. After all, they could be right and we could be wrong. Or do you claim to KNOW they're wrong?

And, if it's the will of God, does it matter whether it was written down 3 weeks ago, 300 years ago or 3000 years ago?

I agree with the idea that if there is a group you are against providing a service you want, then avoid them. But this brings in so many other issues: the child's interest, bigoted views of a powerful and wealthy organisation.

See, that's my problem. Their views may be bigotted, but that doesn't mean they aren't doing a lot of good for kids. And if we force them to choose between acting counter to their honestly-held views, however bigotted you and I regard them as being, then it'll be the kids that suffer if they choose option 3).

[madad2005]

The mother plus father combination has worked for the last 10,000 years to very good effect (our population is always grownig). The man plus woman combination is generally the only way to even get pregnant with current science (even sperm for artificial insemination and IVF). The mother and father combination also allows for a balanced upbringing (anyone here who grew up with both parents, have a good, hard think about what life would of been like without one of them there).

[what_katie_did]

The mother plus father combination has worked for the last 10,000 years to very good effect (our population is always grownig)

hhhmmmm.......tentitively agreed in terms of reproduction

The man plus woman combination is generally the only way to even get pregnant with current science (even sperm for artificial insemination and IVF).

again, tentative but will accept it

The mother and father combination also allows for a balanced upbringing (anyone here who grew up with both parents, have a good, hard think about what life would of been like without one of them there).[/QUOTE]

Now this is the bit i have issue with. I did grow up with both parents who were married, heterosexual and happy, I was extremely lucky. However it is extremely short-sighted to believe that heterosexual parents = happy, healthy childhood.
I have spent a good portion of my professional life working with teenagers who identify as lesbian, gay and bisexual. In order to make my point in this post I refer here ONLY to those whose parents were happily married heterosexuals. I have seen first hand children as young as 15 iving in tents on wasteland after being cast out of the family home, 16 year olds in dubious concil flats having fire bombs posted through the letter box, graffiti writen across the door being terrified to leave the flat, I have spent hours in the middle of the night trying to talk a 17 year old girl out of taking her own life (thankfully successfully), i have worked with scores of teenagers with serious mental health problems, depression, self-harm, eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse etc, etc. I of course to not mean to tar all heterosexual, married parents with the same brush but the point i make is that all of these children I have mentioned have suffered terribly at the hands of homophobic prejudice.
Whether we like it or not, the catholic church is a powerful institution world wide, it is my opinion that by publicly objecting to same-sex partnership adoptions they are fueling the homophobia within our society which is directly responsible for this abuse of our children. Organisations whether religious or not which have a significant sway on pubic oppinion have a responsibility to consider the far reaching consequences of their actions and it is my argument that the actions of the catholic church, in this instance, are contributing to serious child abuse through homophobia.
I do not include my opinion of the catholic church because i dont believe it is relevant and I do not wish to get involved in that debate, i do believe that individuals are entitled to hold their own beliefs, however I do believe there is a huge difference between individual religious beliefs and faith and pubic teachings by religious organisations which impact society as a whole.

[Saracen]

...... I of course to not mean to tar all heterosexual, married parents with the same brush but the point i make is that all of these children I have mentioned have suffered terribly at the hands of homophobic prejudice.

Could you expand on that a bit, please? There may be a link, but just based on what you've said, I can't see the link between the circumstances you mentioned and homophobia.

Organisations whether religious or not which have a significant sway on pubic oppinion have a responsibility to consider the far reaching consequences of their actions and it is my argument that the actions of the catholic church, in this instance, are contributing to serious child abuse through homophobia.
I do not include my opinion of the catholic church because i dont believe it is relevant and I do not wish to get involved in that debate, i do believe that individuals are entitled to hold their own beliefs, however I do believe there is a huge difference between individual religious beliefs and faith and pubic teachings by religious organisations which impact society as a whole.

When you have adherents to a given faith, whichever one it may be, there's no hard line between the teachings of that faith and the personal beliefs of the followers. At the very least, a substantial part of personal belief is going to come from the teachings of the faith, so there's going ti be a very substantial overlap.

So, as I understand it, Catholics believe homosexuality is wrong and that their faith precludes them from encouraging it, or placing children into the care of homosexual couples. If legislation forces them to treat all applicants equally, it implies :-

1) Catholic agencies continue to operate, and therefore have to act against their conscience, or

2) They cease to operate, in which case children they would have placed are likely to be the ones that suffer, or

3) They break the law and continue to operate, but illegally.

So it seems to me that this law puts these Catholic agencies in an impossible situation. I don't see that they would be allowed to do 3) for very long, even if they tried. The government would have to step in and close them down.

So that leaves us with a law that either forces people to act against their religious beliefs, or to leave Catholic agencies closed down. It does, it seems to me, effectively say that the right of homosexuals to adopt via all agencies is more important than the right of a religious person to follow their faith or the benefit to the child of being homed. Bear in mind that the Catholics haven't tried to prevent gays adopting via other agencies, and have said they can, do and would refer such applicants to a non-Catholic agency. It's just that the don't feel inclined to be forced to act against their own religious conviction, which will leave them unable to act at all.

Now, if it's people's intention to put the right of a gay couple to adopt high enough upo the priority list that it means substantial numbers of kids don't get adopted at all (currently, about 200 a year, including a high percentage of the hardest-to-place ones), then supporting this absurd piece of legislation is a superb way of going about it.

Of course, Government could decide to step in and to create and fund state agencies to take up the workload off the Catholic agencies, but that would require the dour pillock currently running the Exchequer (and desperate to run the country .... into the ground, most likely) to dip into state funds and actually pay for it, and there doesn't seem to be any prospect of that. I mean, far from it for the government to understand that looking after the most vulnerable kids in society is actually a central part of their duty, when there's expense-account fact-finding missions to far-flung lands to be doing. Far from it from that self-same pillock to actually fund looking after deprived British kids when instead he can get a bit of TV coverage kissing baby's arses in Africa.

I'm not a Catholic, and I absolutely despise the Catholic church's stance on many issues, not least of which is condoms in Africa. what_katie_did, I agree with you about formal Church teachings. As far as I'm concerned, just about every formal religion is a barely disguised method of controlling gullible masses via propaganda, obscure ritual and farcical myth-based ceremony.

But when a government acts to put people, not organisations or formal Church groups, but people, in the position of having to act against their own genuinely-held faith (however ridiculous some of us think it may be) in order to help the most deprived kids in our society, then I think it's about time that government was shown the door, because they're far less use than a chocolate fireguard. At least you can eat that.

[JPreston]

....when a government acts to put people, not organisations or formal Church groups, but people, in the position of having to act against their own genuinely-held faith (however ridiculous some of us think it may be) in order to help the most deprived kids in our society, then I think it's about time that government was shown the door, because they're far less use than a chocolate fireguard. At least you can eat that.

No. People have to obey the law first and foremost, because the law is there to protect ALL members of society not whichever bronze-age tribal belief people think they owe the highest allegience to. There can be no exemptions for 'religious' or any other personal beliefs, otherwise you have legalised suicde bombers and child molestors. It has nothing to do with whatever political party you happen to support either.

[nichomach]

They also collaborated with the Nazis

People have to obey the law first and foremost

So...presumably, then, the Catholic church was right to co-operate with the Nazis at the time, since the Nazis were operating within the law (law that they had created, but law nonetheless)? And anyone like Martin Niemoller or Dietrich Bonhoeffer who opposed the Nazis was wrong, since what they did contravened the law?

[Saracen]

No. People have to obey the law first and foremost, because the law is there to protect ALL members of society not whichever bronze-age tribal belief people think they owe the highest allegience to. There can be no exemptions for 'religious' or any other personal beliefs, otherwise you have legalised suicde bombers and child molestors. It has nothing to do with whatever political party you happen to support either.

If an exception is made for religious reasons when good grounds for it exist, then nobody would be breaking the law, would they? The Catholic agencies would be following the law. And I wasn't arguing that Catholics should be allowed to break the law. I was arguing that the law was WRONG - an exception to allow a compromise (such as Catholic agencies referring gay couples to the many other agencies). It wouldn't stop gays adopting. It would just allow Catholics to continue doing good work without breaching their conscience .... or "bronze-age triabal belief."

And there already ARE many examples of exemptions granted on the basis of religious belief, ranging from RTA provisions exempting Sikhs from crash helmet laws to Section 139 (5)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended by the Offensive Weapons Act 1996 (139A(4)(c). It is an offence to carry most forms of knives or bladed instruments, except in very specific circumstances, one of which is for "religious reasons".

Yet, offensive weapons laws are there specifically to prevent people carrying knives, etc in public, in order to, as you so correctly put it, "protect ALL members of society".

So please don't tell me exceptions can't be made for religious reasons, because you're utterly wrong if you do. There are MANY examples of it already. If the law was totally blind to religious mandates, and simply didn't make exceptions, I could understand why a stance would be taken even when it means kids suffer. But to allow Sikhs to bypass crash helmet laws and refuse to allow Catholics to follow their own beliefs while helping deprived kids is assinine. It's contradictory and hypocritical.

Or is it alright to make an exception to allow Sikhs to carry a kirpan in public without breaching weapons laws whilst refusing to allow Catholics to help disadvantaged children?

And I can just see the BNP or National Front (etc) using this as a "them and us" argument. It's okay for "immigrants" (conveniently ignoring how many Sikhs are born here and as British as I am) to carry knives. but not for Catholics to try to help disadvantaged kids.


Oh, and on the subject of tribal beliefs ...... I believe, as you do, that it's all smoke and mirrors, contrived medieval crap design to manipulate and control. But ..... I could be wrong. Maybe the Catholics have the straight connection to the Almighty poobah, and I'm in deep poop, with you next to me in the fire and brimstone. Or maybe the Sikhs are right. Or Muslims. Or the blue-mud slingers of the deepest Amazon (and wouldn't that put some embarrassed and contrite expressions on some pompous Cardinal-type faces )

But I don't know I'm right, and they're wrong. Which is why however much I feel it's superstitous claptrap, I feel we need VERY good reason to legislate people into breaching their consience. Otherwise, all I'm seeking to do is legislate my beliefs over the top of their beliefs.

Do you know it's just tribal beliefs and that the Catholics aren't right? If so, enlighten us with the proof, please.

[JPreston]

...
Or is it alright to make an exception to allow Sikhs to carry a kirpan in public without breaching weapons laws whilst refusing to allow Catholics to help disadvantaged children?.... It's okay for "immigrants" (conveniently ignoring how many Sikhs are born here and as British as I am) to carry knives. but not for Catholics to try to help disadvantaged kids....

OK then Ironside, your knowledge of the exemptions granted to sikhs is extensive but I think you have been fooled by the christian lobbyists as they gloss over a VERY important distinction.

A sikh is allowed to wear a turban no matter what (more strictly, it is illegal to prevent a sikh from wearing a turban) and this does indeed mean that he does not have to wear a motorcycle helmet.

BUT, by taking advantage of this exemption he is not materially disadvantaging anyone else.

The christians are maintaining that it is their right - and only their right, mind - to materially disadvantage whoever they want to, in this case they want to disadvantage gays by denying them an adoption service. The principle at stake is entirely different and much more far reaching.

There are lots of people in the world who believe it is their religious duty to blow up everyone who does not share their religion (i.e. american christians ). If ANY group is granted exemption from the law for the express purpose of allowing them to harm other groups, then you have just legalised islamist suicide bombing.

It's been said - you'll like this - that you should respect your neighbour's religion to exactly the same extent that you respect his theory that his wife is beautiful. I.e, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else then tactfully let him get on with it (but ONLY so long as it doesn't harm anyone else).

Me, if my neighbour has married a minger I'll tell him

[fuddam]

If an exception is made for religious reasons when good grounds for it exist, then nobody would be breaking the law, would they?......

good post, that thar wuz. Good post - the whole thing.

[JPreston]

So...presumably, then, the Catholic church was right to co-operate with the Nazis at the time, since the Nazis were operating within the law (law that they had created, but law nonetheless)? And anyone like Martin Niemoller or Dietrich Bonhoeffer who opposed the Nazis was wrong, since what they did contravened the law?

so by not discriminating against gays, I am as bad as the Nazis? Hitler remained a catholic to his death - he was never excommunicated, nor did he denounce his faith. The german issue belts were imprinted 'God is with us'.

As it happens my grandad was sent to Dachau because he was betrayed by a catholic priest. The priest was under no legal compulsion to do so. It was a religious duty of his...

[Saracen]

OK then Ironside, your knowledge of the exemptions granted to sikhs is extensive but I think you have been fooled by the christian lobbyists as they gloss over a VERY important distinction.

A sikh is allowed to wear a turban no matter what (more strictly, it is illegal to prevent a sikh from wearing a turban) and this does indeed mean that he does not have to wear a motorcycle helmet.

BUT, by taking advantage of this exemption he is not materially disadvantaging anyone else.

The christians are maintaining that it is their right - and only their right, mind - to materially disadvantage whoever they want to, in this case they want to disadvantage gays by denying them an adoption service. The principle at stake is entirely different and much more far reaching.

There are lots of people in the world who believe it is their religious duty to blow up everyone who does not share their religion (i.e. american christians ). If ANY group is granted exemption from the law for the express purpose of allowing them to harm other groups, then you have just legalised islamist suicide bombing.

It's been said - you'll like this - that you should respect your neighbour's religion to exactly the same extent that you respect his theory that his wife is beautiful. I.e, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else then tactfully let him get on with it (but ONLY so long as it doesn't harm anyone else).

Me, if my neighbour has married a minger I'll tell him

I'm not being fooled by anybody over this.

You made a sweeping statement about religious exemptions. I merely gave a couple of examples of the fact that exemtions ARE made.

And I note that in you pointing out that wearing a turban instead of a crash helmet doesn't materially disadvantage anybody else (true, incidentally), you fail to address how carrying a knife around in public doesn't disadvantage anybody else.

And the Catholics aren't seeking to deny gays an adoption service. They DO refer them to other services. They just don't want to have to act against their own conscience.

Ironside? Care to explain that one?