If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Clearly the government thinks the welfare of the children is the most important thing. That is why is trying to ensure adoption agencies don't turn away potential parents for no good reason.
But in no way is this to be interpreted as blackmail...
Indeed. If I were the government I would take every last child in care of the Catholic Church away, for until they change their ways they're clearly not capable of looking after the children's interests in the best possible way.
You are going to answer that it isn't, but homosexuality is seen as a sin and as such gay people cannot be seen as suitable parents.
How about rich people? Rich people are a no-no to the Almighty. Rich people have no chance of going to Heaven. You wouldn't really want to send a child to such people, would you?
How about those who work on the Sabbath? Mortal sin according to the Old Testament. You wouldn't wan't to send a child to such vile people would you?
Eating shellfish is 'an abomination' according to the Good Book, just as homosexuality. Do you think the Catholic Church should ask potential parents whether they touch the stuff?
Now you give me one reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt according to the Scriptures, but rich people those who work on the Sabbath and those who eath shellfish (to name but three of the many aburd rules found in the Bible) should...
Though lets ask the catholics some questions while I'm here. I'm interested in selling my younger brother into slavery, as sanctioned in exodus 21:7, what would a good price for him be?
While thinking about that, may I ask another, my manager insists on working on the sabbath day, exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death, am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it ok to call the police.
Does the whole village really have to be together to stone a farmer, for planting different crops side by side?
Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing clothes made from two different threads?
Think about these questions would you.
Simple, huh?
:rolleyes:
Calling homosexuality a damned sin is a pretty literal interpretation of the bible, and how can one take a group of people seriously when they decide willy nilly what to, and what not to follow from what is something as serious and widely known as the bible.
You mean that because they have studied it so long, someone who decides which bits they want to, and which bits they don't want to follow isn't acting willy nilly?
If you follow the bible so seriously, as many religious people do, they have to be hipocritical at some point, do they follow the law or their beliefs, god gave us all free will, so can't a religious person respect our free will to enact and enforce laws that protect the denegration of a free person, under the belief (the american constitution got this one right) that all men are created equal.
When they come into condraction you mean? Well, it will be down to each individual's conscience then. Religious leaders may voice out what they think and suggest what a 'good' follower of their religion should do - but the ultimate decision will lie in their consciences. Why does it follow that it will necessarily bring them into hypocrisy?
The point isn't whether the Catholic Church is right or wrong in it's belief that practising homosexuality is wrong.
The point here isn't whether the Catholic Church is correct in its interpretation of the Bible.
The point is whether or not the government should be able to dictate to private adoption agencies how they select their candidate to parents (assuming that safe guards have been met).
The point is possibly whether the Catholic Church is right to say that if they are stopped from doing arranging adoptions within their principles whether they should stop doing it at all, or whether they should go against their beliefs and carry on regardless.
The arguement that the Catholic Church is an unsuitable organisation is very very weak. Look at the success they have, they look after a far higher % of difficult to place kids than the local authorities do, and have a far higher success rate than the local authorities do.
They are doing a good job for the kids that need it, surely the continuation of that is more important than the supposed need for gay couples to be able to adopt from every single agency out there.
They're not turning away potential adoptive parents, though, because they don't think that they are suitable people. That's the point, why should they forced to go through with something that they find morally abhorrent?
Personally I don't think that gay people should be allowed to adopt, but that isn't an argument I particularly want to get drawn into (I'll say its cause they can't conceive naturally, you'll argue about infertile people, and its boring).
TBH, I'm not hugely bothered, it just irks me that religous people think they should get special treatment. They shouldn't.
That's not a bad idea actually.
What annoys me is that people use the Bible to justify all sorts of bigotry, then claim to not follow it literally.
Bollocks, quite frankly. The average person who uses the Bible to justify their bigotry have not studied it for years. In fact, the ones who have studied it for years tend not to be the bigots.
I don’t think you can ring-fence things so neatly. I’d have similar concerns if the BNP, for example, were running an adoption agency.
I happen to think that the Catholic Church should be able to continue its work, either as a result of amending the new law coming in, or not bothering with them at all, if only for the sake of the kids in care. That doesn’t mean, however, that I believe the Catholic Church are anywhere close to ideal adoption agents. I find the indoctrination of children worrying, and strongly feel that many Catholic (and other religions) beliefs are deeply bigoted; not an ideal situation in which to place a vulnerable child.
Still, I would like the government have the balls to call the Catholic Church’s bluff.
They are possibly not ideal, but then I'm not sure what it and as long as the children they look after are well cared for and not totally indoctrinated (which I would hope social service checks would check up on) then why force them to change.
I realise they are a slightly biased source but talk to anyone who has worked for local authorities fostering/adoption services and for the other ones be it Barnodos, Catholic Childrens Soc or anything else and they will alomost always say that the other organisations do it better than social services do. Why remove that support from social services? Why force an agency to close that does a lot of children a lot of good.
I think in essence we agree.
When working with reality it’s often necessary to compromise one’s pure ideals. I reckon this is on of those times. Ideally I wouldn’t have children exposed to religion, other than in a purely objective sense. Also, in an ideal world I wouldn’t have children looked after by an organisation that holds beliefs which are deeply repugnant.
Still, in this case it’s better to have the kids looked after, than not. I don’t believe the Catholic Church would close down its adoption centres, it would a ridiculously unchristian thing to do, not to mention the damage to their rep.
Way to miss the point anyway. The Catholic Church is wrong to turn away potential parents simply because of their sexual orientation, which will have no effect on the bringing up of the child. An organisation that is prejudiced towards some people, that is prepared to delay the adoption of a child based on that prejudiced, and that threatens to close agencies altogether if it doesn't get its wishes clearly doesn't have the best interests of the child in mind.
Just as discrimination on the basis of race is wrong, repugnant and has been outlawed, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is as wrong and repugnant and should be outlawed. I really don't see why any religious organisation should get preferential treatment.
The latter should apply. At the end of the day they're supposed to be serving the child's best interests, not satisfying their own beliefs and prejudices.
Quite. That's why they should stop their disgusting extortion and threats and think of the children, rather than their beliefs.
Others think that older parents are unsuitable, but then that's ageism, some think that parents should be the same race as a child, but then that's racism, so think parents should be the ame religion, but then that's religious discrimination.
Saying that the Catholic Church is willing to make the children it cares for wait longer doesn't ring true. They do a far better job of finding equivalent children families than social services do.
What about discriminating on the basis of religion, or the oppression of religious practises and principles?
At the end of the day you can't legislate to protect everything completely because some things are mutually exclusive.
The Catholic Church's viewpoint however isn't consistent. The only reason why they don't want to let gay parents adopt is because they think homosexuality is an abomination. The only reason they think it is an abomination is because the Bible says so. But the Bible also says eating shellfish is an abomination. Do you seriously think the Catholic Church asks potential parents whether they eat shellfish? Of course they don't.
Which actually means the Church isn't even acting according to the beliefs of their faith. They're cherry picking on some passages to target the people they don't like and ignoring other passages to suit the people they like (the rich come to mind). That is clearly an unfair discrimination that can't even be disguised as religious beliefs. It's bigotry and prejudice.
It is not the mission of the Catholic Church to run adoption agencies. If they do they must obey the laws of the land and be fair to all. If they can't manage that they shouldn't be in the business of running adoption agencies.
Can I ask you again the question I asked earlier: do you think those who work on the Sabbath, those who are rich or those who eat shellfish should also be rejected as parents by the Catholic Church? Yes/No?
Actually, to be exact, homosexuality isn't an abomination. Homosexual sex is. Homosexual sex is only an abomination because it is sex outside of marriage- gays can't get married.
The reasons why the Church don't want gays to adopt are the same reasons that I don't- I don't think it is appropriate or desirable for homosexual people to be raising children. I think that a child needs both a male and a female parent. Now life gets in the way for some parents- if a parent realises they're gay their kids shouldn't be taken off them, same with single parents- but with adoption we have the ability to choose. I don't think we should be choosing single or gay parents.
Which is exactly what the Church is saying they will do, isn't it? So what's your problem? They were within the law, and the law will soon move, so they will stop acting for these children.
How about those who earn less than 80,000k a year? If we are to choose only the most ideal candidates possible, anyone who isn't rather wealthy should be automatically disqualified. At the end of the day, a child who is given the best private education money can buy would be better off than others, no?
So long as the child is brought up by decent, loving parents, nothing else matters.
It is still disgraceful blackmail.
But yes, the government should just let them do it. They should create secular adoption agencies to take on the children about to be unceremoniously dumped by the caring, "Christian" Catholic Church in England. And while they're at it, they should finance the opening of such adopting agencies with any money that might have been earmarked for other Catholic Church projects.
Christ must be so proud...
So on one hand you're telling the Church that they should accept the law or pull out, and on the other hand you're condemning the Church for being forced into making the choice.
How ridiculous.
I'm not getting into the debate on homosexual parenting- I'm not going to change my mind any time soon, and the debate bores me.
If someone is going to follow the Bible, they have to pick and chose because like I believe you have stated it contradicts itself in places.
There is nothing in Catholiscism about Shellfish, so no I wouldn't expect them to ask about that. I would however expect, if they were looking for a Catholic family, to see if they respected the Sabbath. In current times that doesn't mean do nothing but pray, but to respect it in some sense.
Religion shouldn't be above the law, but law should respect religion. The Church is saying that they will respect it, and as it is at odds with their faith they will stop running adoption agencies. That doesn't necessarily mean they will stop looking after children while someone elses tries to find them parents.
I take it you've seen today that the C of E is taking the same stance.