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
Nobody is trying to ban the Church for thinking or saying gays are wrong 'uns and homosexuality is an abomination. But if the Church chooses to engage in a socially important service such as adoption agencies, they should be obliged to both have the best interest of the children and heart and not to be prejudiced towards anyone on the grounds of race, gender and indeed sexual orientation.
If you had read my earlier post you would see that the one I picked up on you discriminating against people was Xenophobic people.
You instantly discriminated against them and that is just as bad as what the Catholic Church does. Now do you understand?
Can you point the post in question to me? I'm not trying to wind you up or anything- I simply don't have a clue what on earth are you on about.
Do You See Now??
For as long as the Church continues to demonise and persecute people because of their sexual orientation they're no better than those who persecute others because of the colour of their skin or their nationality.
What exactly do you see wrong with this concept?
It's no different than for people with arachnophobia, or aggrophobia. Do you hate them as well?
Homophobes are different as these Bastards will attack homosexual people whether mentally or physically whenever they can. Xenophobes just try to avoid meeting strangers as much as possible and aren't violent towards strangers unless they feel extremely threatened.
I see a lot of things the Catholic church as wrong but I just don't like to see people try to score a moral victory when they themselves are discriminating in the same way but just against different people. That sort of moral victory has a bitter aftertaste.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/xenophobia
1. pathological fear of foreigners.
2. pathological hatred for foreigners.
3. pathological fear/hatred of the unknown.
Shall we stop this discussion now anyway as it is diverting from the main issue being debated?
Just to note that this wouldn't even mean that them being gay wouldn't be a factor in whether they were able to adopt or not, just that you wouldn't be able to flat out refuse someone solely for this reason, in the same way that someone's race can also become a factor if it is genuinely in the best interests of the child, and it can be reasonably justified.
Religions should be free to practise and express their beliefs.
Handily enough these two are not mutually exclusive because gay couples can have the same rights (and opportunities) as anyone else, and religions can continue to keep to their beliefs because there are plenty of organisations that will consider taking gay couples onto their books.
Please remember that the opportunity to adopt children is NOT a right, it's a gift and it's an honour and the CHILD is the most important person, not the so called 'rights' of someone that might want to care for them.
Other religions have exception from other legeslation (slaughter of animals), why shouldn't a reasonable level of respect be given in this case?
Therefore the law is getting exactly what it wants- nobody is being discriminated against on terms of sexual orientation. The Church isn't discriminating, and nobody else is. The adoption agency has closed, but that's just incidental, isn't it?
That's not quite true is it? Until this law was passed people could turn gays away from their businesses based on "religious beliefs".
Go and tell a gay couple who have been turned away from a rural B&B in the middle of nowhere and told to find somewhere else to stay the night by the deeply religious owner that they have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else.
But that's not the point is it? See above.
Indeed. That's why the Catholic Church should stop turning away potential parents because of their own beliefs and prejudices. They're supposed to be looking after the child's interests not pushing their own agenda.
Perhaps because children (and gays) are human beings not animals?
Yes, it has been suggested that the churches should continue running the adoption agencies and take gay couples. Which is stopping them practising their beliefs.
1. This law hasn't been passed yet, as far as I know, otherwise this discussion would have ended and we would have an answer.
2. I am referring to their supposed 'rights' with regard to adopting children, not to accomodation. I've been turned away from all sorts of campsites and accomodation for being a group of single sex young people, but that is obviously ok. :rolleyes: If you want accomodation, you book it in advance, and solve the problem of risking getting turned away because it is full or you don't meet with the regulations. Smokers are not allowed in many B&Bs, neither are pet owners. Maybe we should legislate for that too?
Why is that not the point? It's not restricting their access to the possibilty of adoption because there will be other agencies and local authorities that will take them. Church agencies do not operate in place of other agencies, but alongside them.
They are looking after the childs interests they (and many others) think that the ideal home for a child is with a married couple. They can aim for that ideal and then go for the closest to it as they deem fit. The Church uses its standards, the local authority uses its, Barnados uses its. You can't criticise the Church for turning away gay couples and say that they are doing a disservice to the child. The Church has a far higher success rate than the local authorities.
Why is it different to make exceptions for one law and not another? It's not about the child/animal in these laws, it's about the right of the religion to keep to its standard and not have their moral actions dictated by the government. Pharmacists and Doctors do not have to provide abortion/contraceptive services if they do not morally agree with it, but they do have to provide a suitable alternative. What's the problem with setting that same proviso?
Running an adoption agency has nothing to do with practising their beliefs. Unless there is a passage in the Bible that states ''Thou Shall Not Allow Sodomites To Adopt Children" I'm not aware of.
You are right. It has been implement in Northern Ireland and it will be implemented in the rest of Britain by April.
Their 'supposed' ( :rolleyes: ) rights with regard to adopting children are the right not to be turned down by anyone because of their sexual orientation
Who says that's okay? Not me.
Oh really? Should non-whites book in advance as well? At the end of the day it'd be silly for anyone to have the insolence to jump in their cars and go away for a weekend on impulse without checking whether the B&Bs in the area have a thing about blacks and Asians. Heaven forbid anyone should have to put up with letting such filth into their house.
The point is removing discrimination. For the same reason we don't allow pubs to bar people from the premises because of the colour of their skin, despite being many other pubs the person could go to, we shouldn't allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation either.
Is it really that difficult to comprehend?
That's not it and you know it. Earlier on the very same post you were arguing that the Catholic Church "wasn't being allowed to practice their beliefs" if they were forced to consider gays for adoption. So let's cut the crap and stop pretending the Church is doing this because they're concerned for the welfare of the child. They're doing it, by their own admission, because they claim their religious beliefs prevent them from considering gays for adoption. Because gays are abominable sinners. And because the Church is profoundly homophobic. But there is absolutely nothing the Church has ever said that suggests they have genuine concerns for the wellbeing of the child.
All this storm in a teacup revolves about this premise: "Gays are bad m'kay? They're awful sinners and we won't have anything to do with those hell-bound sodomites."
That is what all of this is about. And that is why such nauseating attitudes must be challenged. Not to mention because the welfare of the children are being put second and even threatened and used as a bargaining chip.
The new doctrine is thus:
1. Being gay is a sin
2. Being non-white is punishment for past-life misdemeanours
3. Belonging to any other organised religion is heresy
4. Becoming a single mother is a strictly forbidden
5. Mixed-race relationships are an abomination against God
6. Abortion is a heinous crime against God
7. No sex before marriage - straight to hell
Oh, did I mention that I run an adoption centre?
Now I won't hear a word said against me, because that's prejudice, and all prejudice is equally wrong - you'd just be being ignorant. Also, as I'm already running the adoption centre this new law has really put me in a pickle. I'm looking after kids, and my morals are being brought into question, but my beliefs aren't bigoted or odious, they're religious. God told me himself, there's no confusion over interpretation; he literally dictated them to me.
Interesting enough, my beliefs do allow me to have white, married, well-off, heterosexual couples adopt my white children. I must have the kids' best interests at heart, or why would I only allow the statistically most suitable parents to adopt?
You should book ahead for accomodation because you may get turned away for one of very many reasons, usually because it's full!
I don't object to being turned away from a site because of the group I'm with, it's a site aimed at familys or whatever and if I'm not a suitable group then I'm not going to get upset when I'm turned away. If no where would take us then that's a different matter, but while there is a reasonable provision that will do most rational people just fine. Be that provision of accomodation, of adoption services, of disabled access or facilities or of anything else.
Where is the welfare of children being threatened? All the Church has said is that if you outlaw its behaviour, it will conform to the law and stop what it is doing, as has happened in states in the USA. Local authorities should be looking after the welfare of all children in care, the Church is attempting to help them, but has no responsibilty for the childrens welfare, that's the local authorities problem. Unfortunatelt the LA aren't very good at it, supposedly because of a lack of resources, so other organisations help out by taking away some of the loads and dealing with people that that organisation supports.
If you're running an adoption centre you won't be looking after children. Someone else (usually a foster carer or a childrens home) will be looking after the children.
What you will be doing is trying to find 'suitable' families for children you have a link to (as hopefully will the local authority be). I wouldn't stop you dealing with whoever you like, a presenting them to the court to judge whether they would be a suitable person to adopt.
Where's the problem?
Religious beliefs are not a valid excuse.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1997767,00.html
That's wrong as well. Religions should not get different treatment.
I don't think that the Church should have an exemption from this law- I don't think that the law should be passed. Whilst I agree with the broad motive of the law, I think the execution is either shockingly poor or cynically calculated to cause this reaction. I can't decide which.
Hmmmm...
I'm quite sure all those Africans are now extremely happy, safe in the knowledge that they've been saved from an eternal damnation they weren't even aware of before the arrival of the church. But I digress.
The point I wanted to make, from my slightly facetious previous post, is that when you dress bigotry up as religious belief, the cessation of rational thought that occurs is amazing; people will flock to defend notions they wouldn’t normally entertain. I don’t draw any distinction between discrimination ostensibly being passed off as religious doctrine, and the frothy-mouthed ravings of a BNP leader or Nazi apologist.
Being a bigoted and offensive organisation isn’t mutually exclusive with doing good things - but the sooner we do away with the antiquated stigmas that still hang around religion, the more quickly we’ll evolve.
Should the Catholic Church still run adoption agencies? Yes, probably. Why? Because the need of those children right now is greater than my sense outrage about the archaic ideas prevalent in so called modern religions. Is the Catholic Church an ideal agent for adoption? Far fucking from it.
I really can't find anything objectionable about giving preference to a married couple in adoption cases. Believing that it is ideal (but certainly not essential) for children to be raised in a natural context with a mother and a father seems a rational and acceptable view to hold.
I can't really see any reason for gay couples to have a 'right' to adopt because they cannot have children naturally. I'm sure gay couples can make good parents but I'm also quite sure that it is preferable for a child to have a mother and a father - as opposed to two dads. The Catholic Church shouldn't be persecuted for believing this, tbh I'm pretty sure that the views of the RC Church on adoption reflect what most people in the country believe.
I'm now utterly convinced that for some people the encapsulation of bigotry in a religious context makes them completely oblivious to it.
Do you honestly think that the Catholic Church's small-minded views of homosexual couples, and their subsequent refusal to deal with gay couples wanting to adopt, is motivated by the same reasons that mean married heterosexual couples are top of state run adoption agencies? I'll give you a clue: one thinks practicing homosexuality is a mortal sin which will have you sent to hell...
We will not foster harmony and lessen discrimination through bullying into submission those holding views ill-fitting with modern views of equality. A line has to be drawn somewhere - imo, inciting murder or violence is one of the few (if not only) acceptable limitations on freedom of expression.
Stifling every individual prejudice through universal legislation, denying people the right to an opinion and enforcing a 'tolerance' doctrine on private citizens and private organisations is a kind of authoritarian fanaticism showing a similar level of respect for private opinions as that shown by communism and fascism.
Why should straight couples have any more of a 'right?'
Adoption is not a right for anybody. You have to be a suitable, loving and responsible person. But what all people have a right to is to be considered for adoption regardless of their sexual orientation.
No. It should be persecuted for continuing its 2,000 year old demonisation of homosexuals. For this is what all of this is about.
I'd be interested to know what people really think. It'd be all too easy to fill the front page of a newspaper with bile and spit about kids being raised by 'Adam and Steve' and then follow it with a "Do you think gays should be allosed to adopt children?" poll. Show them the facts and then see what they say.
I'm yet to see a single study that shows a child raised by a loving, same-sex couple is going to be worse off in any way conceivable than a child raised by a straight couple.
Not at all. The Catholic Church has a view, I personally don't subscribe to it but I respect the right of Catholics to hold that view. And Catholics should not be banned from allowing their views to influence their dealings with regard to adoption.
From the earlier article I linked to -
I'm sure religious doctrine is a major factor but there is also the obvious fact that it is preferable for a child to be adopted into a standard context with a mother and a father.
The latter is in practice equal to the natural norm. The former isn't.
It's not essential - but it's surely preferable for a child to have a mother and a father.
I don't think there have been many studies that carry much weight. But, I can't really think of any reason to question something supported by hundreds of years of experience - that it's ideal for a child to have a mother and a father.
If you look back over the thread you'll see that I’m not advocating bringing this law into fruition. You’ve drawn a line in the sand, and so have I. Mine just appears to be a little further up the beach.
You’ve misrepresented my argument as well. I don’t wish to stifle people’s right to be a dick-head, through legislation or any other means. I do think, however, that when the especially irrational and non-thinking prejudices of a given organisation (or individual) spill over into the thinking man’s world, then my right not be suffer at the hands of these social relics, outweighs their right to be a cunt. I don’t think that equates a descent into fascism either.