Catholic Bigotry?

[Lonan3]

Not actually adoption, but....

When I was a baby, Social services originally placed me with a carer who was severely neglectful of her responsibilities.

It was the local catholic church organisation who found suitable long-term foster parents for me.

The foster parents were 1 C of E and 1 Methodist. They made an agreement that I'd be sent to a RC school, but it was only when my natural mother intervened that this was enforced.

This was at a time (late 1940s) when catholicism was much stricter than it is today.

 

John Wright's suggestion that government run social service organisations are capable or competent is rubbish. As an advocate, he ought to know that they frequently cause more problems than they solve.

 

I am not a catholic - I am a total non-believer, and detest religion as an anachronism left over from a less enlightened age - but I think the church organisations are probably capable of doing at least as effective a job as the SS (social services).

 

And, no matter how this much offends anyone, I genuinely believe that a child needs both male and female influences as it is growing - and the simplest way is to place it with a caring husband and wife. Only if it ever reaches the stage where no such couples are looking to adopt, should homosexual couples be considered as adoptive parents.

[Chinahand]

In my personal opinion, Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children. I think it is terribly wrong. I can very well understand the way in which the Catholic and Anglican Church are viewing the matter. If they are to be forced by law to enable Homosexuals to adopt children, then it's better to just get out now. Leave society to face the problems that society creates for itself.

 

I cannot accept that we as a society would allow a child to be brought into the homes of a Dad and a Dad.... or a Mum and a Mum, thus depriving that child of the contribution of both parents that even nature itself decrees.

 

Nature itself decrees? How many people are raised by say a mother and a grand mother, or even a father and a grand father, due to double widowhood? Or just by a mother, or just by a father?

 

Vast numbers of people are raised in non conventional families. You seem to have this panglossian idea that we must all live in perfect conventional families. Well welcome to the real world.

 

Are you saying that it is impossible for a child to be raised successfully in a gay household?

 

You seem to be claiming that being raised in a homosexual family harms a child, that the contribution from the one mother, or father, is damaged by the contribution of the other one. I think that is bull and would challenge you to provide any evidence for this.

 

Practically gay adoption is irrelevant to our society the numbers are simply too small, but this is being raised as an ideological attack on a group of people. That attack is being carried out because the churches say homosexuals are sinful. They are putting souls before the care of children. I find it inconcievable that it is impossible to vet a homosexual couple to ensure bad parents are weeded out, and good parents approved to adopt children. This process would be practically identical to the vetting of a standard couple.

 

But no you seem to be saying gayness absolutely procludes having any positive role in raising a child.

 

Shit, I hope your children aren't gay. Go on tell me they won't be - you'll be able to surpress any such urges through fear of sin, and abandonment by Jesus.[Contempt] [/Contempt]

[Miss Take]

Chinahand - thanks for putting that reply way better than I could!

[DjDan]

In my personal opinion, Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children. I think it is terribly wrong. I can very well understand the way in which the Catholic and Anglican Church are viewing the matter. If they are to be forced by law to enable Homosexuals to adopt children, then it's better to just get out now. Leave society to face the problems that society creates for itself.

 

I cannot accept that we as a society would allow a child to be brought into the homes of a Dad and a Dad.... or a Mum and a Mum, thus depriving that child of the contribution of both parents that even nature itself decrees.

 

Nature itself decrees? How many people are raised by say a mother and a grand mother, or even a father and a grand father, due to double widowhood? Or just by a mother, or just by a father?

 

Vast numbers of people are raised in non conventional families. You seem to have this panglossian idea that we must all live in perfect conventional families. Well welcome to the real world.

 

Firstly, when did I suggest that we all live in perfect families?

 

Secondly, do I need to teach you how a child is born?? - Female & Male. Therefore, Nature itself decrees that this is how a child is brought into the world. Following on from that, research has shown that a Mother and Father (being Female and Male) contribute significantly to that child. And where there is a loss of one or the other, there is a negative effect on that child (in comparison to those children brought up by both a mother and father).

 

Yes, that is not always the case.... death, seperation etc. etc. But we should not actively encourage such a situation to permeate. Just as we wouldn't encourage 16 year old girls to get pregnant and raise a child themselves (generally the father leaves them at this point)... I don't believe we should encourage the situation whereby a child is brought up having two Dad's, which as I say, is against even nature itself.

 

You seem to be claiming that being raised in a homosexual family harms a child, that the contribution from the one mother, or father, is damaged by the contribution of the other one.

 

Frankly, yes I do believe that. I believe every child deserves the privilege of having a mother and father. I believe that that should be encouraged, not disencouraged. I don't believe that we should use little children as guinea pigs and experiment on their lives to 'see if anything strange happens to them as a result of this upraising'. I don't feel it necessary to 'wait and see' and have 'evidence' brought about to 'prove' that there is a negative effect. What if in the future this evidence is found? by then it will be too late. We cannot surely tell what negative effects may come of this! But I believe there will be many - school bullying, interpreting male-on-male sexual relationships to be the norm etc.

 

Would you choose to deprive a child of a mother?

Would you choose to deprive a child of a father?

That's exactly what you are doing when you choose to believe that a child should be raised without one or the other and in a home with two Mothers, or two Fathers.

 

I think that is wrong. Very wrong.

[Lonan3]

To explain why Chinahand would like to edit the title of this thread:

 

From today's TIMES

 

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York declared on the side of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster after Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor wrote to every member of the Cabinet stating that the Catholic Church could not accept a law forcing its adoption agencies to accept gay couples.

They give warning that the argument over the Sexual Orientation Regulations has reached damaging proportions and that “much could be lost”. They say: “Many in the voluntary sector are dedicated to public service because of the dictates of their conscience. In legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups the Government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights to have been ignored or sacrificed, or in which the dictates of personal conscience are put at risk.

“The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.” They draw a comparison with doctors working for the NHS, who are entitled to opt out of performing abortions if it goes against their conscience.

They said: “It is vitally important that the interests of vulnerable children are not relegated to suit any political interest. And that conditions are not inadvertently created which make the claims of conscience an obstacle to, rather than the inspiration for, the invaluable public service rendered by parts of the voluntary sector.”

[Miss Take]

In my personal opinion, Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children. I think it is terribly wrong. I can very well understand the way in which the Catholic and Anglican Church are viewing the matter. If they are to be forced by law to enable Homosexuals to adopt children, then it's better to just get out now. Leave society to face the problems that society creates for itself.

 

I cannot accept that we as a society would allow a child to be brought into the homes of a Dad and a Dad.... or a Mum and a Mum, thus depriving that child of the contribution of both parents that even nature itself decrees.

 

Nature itself decrees? How many people are raised by say a mother and a grand mother, or even a father and a grand father, due to double widowhood? Or just by a mother, or just by a father?

 

Vast numbers of people are raised in non conventional families. You seem to have this panglossian idea that we must all live in perfect conventional families. Well welcome to the real world.

 

Firstly, when did I suggest that we all live in perfect families?

 

Secondly, do I need to teach you how a child is born?? - Female & Male. Therefore, Nature itself decrees that this is how a child is brought into the world. Following on from that, research has shown that a Mother and Father (being Female and Male) contribute significantly to that child. And where there is a loss of one or the other, there is a negative effect on that child (in comparison to those children brought up by both a mother and father).

 

Yes, that is not always the case.... death, seperation etc. etc. But we should not actively encourage such a situation to permeate. Just as we wouldn't encourage 16 year old girls to get pregnant and raise a child themselves (generally the father leaves them at this point)... I don't believe we should encourage the situation whereby a child is brought up having two Dad's, which as I say, is against even nature itself.

 

nature is not an entity - it does not 'decree' anything.

How is a 16 year old, life immature girl comparable to a gay couple in a loving relationship who have made the decision that they would like to raise a child?

[DjDan]

nature is not an entity - it does not 'decree' anything.

How is a 16 year old, life immature girl comparable to a gay couple in a loving relationship who have made the decision that they would like to raise a child?

 

and what if that gay couple are 18? aren't they also life-immature? would you also suggest that the 16 year old girl hasn't made the decision that she would like to raise the child?

 

the comparison is that this child is to be brought up without a father figure.

in a lesbian relationship, the child will also be brought up without a father figure.

[Miss Take]

Is it possible to put someone on ignore? I think that DjDan has gone beyond trolling now and if I were a more sensitive person and certainly if I were gay, I would find some of his 'statements of fact' quite offensive. I'd prefer to just not read them if possible.

[Lonan3]

Is it possible to put someone on ignore? I think that DjDan has gone beyond trolling now and if I were a more sensitive person and certainly if I were gay, I would find some of his 'statements of fact' quite offensive. I'd prefer to just not read them if possible.

If you refuse to read views simply because they disagree with your own well, that's your choice. But the whole point of a forum is to debate and there wouldn't be a debate if we all accepted the same point of view.

Personally, as I've stated above, I disagree with 'gay' couples being allowed to adopt - not for any religious reasons but because I honestly believe that it does not serve the best interests of the child.

DjDan may, at times, appear to be a troll - but I think we should accept that his views are honestly held.

I may mock his particular religious beliefs (as I would with any religion), but I think its unfair to accuse him of 'trolling' every time he comes up with an opinion that others disagree with.

[Miss Take]

If you refuse to read views simply because they disagree with your own well, that's your choice. But the whole point of a forum is to debate and there wouldn't be a debate if we all accepted the same point of view.

Personally, as I've stated above, I disagree with 'gay' couples being allowed to adopt - not for any religious reasons but because I honestly believe that it does not serve the best interests of the child.

DjDan may, at times, appear to be a troll - but I think we should accept that his views are honestly held.

I may mock his particular religious beliefs (as I would with any religion), but I think its unfair to accuse him of 'trolling' every time he comes up with an opinion that others disagree with.

 

There's a big difference between presenting an opinion and making an inflammatory statement of that opinion - hence the trolling aspect of what he writes. Perhaps he's just so motivated by righteous zeal that he doesn't have time to temper his statements before he posts them...

 

Maybe I should just take some deep breaths and not let his remarks wind me up so much. After all, everyone has a right to their own opinion. It is difficult to ignore such a forceful view when it's diametrically opposed to your own, though.

 

Maybe I'm just not cut out for mass debate.........

[Chinahand]

… do I need to teach you how a child is born?? - Female & Male. Therefore, Nature itself decrees that this is how a child is brought into the world.

 

Give the man a prize, but we are not debating how children are brought into the world. We are discussing how they are raised. And guess what … children are raised in a huge number of different ways, in which the nuclear family is only one option.

… when did I suggest that we all live in perfect families?

 

You seem absolutely incapable of understanding we are talking about children who are being put up for adoption. They do not have functioning mothers or fathers; either the state has taken them into care due to the inability of the parents to raise their children; or some, or all, of their parents are dead, or they have voluntarily decided they do not want to raise the children themselves.

 

This is very, very sad, but it happens a lot.

 

The collapse of adoption has left many thousands of children brought up in care, by a bureaucracy.

 

You say

Would you choose to deprive a child of a mother?

Would you choose to deprive a child of a father?

That's exactly what you are doing when you choose to believe that a child should be raised without one or the other and in a home with two Mothers, or two Fathers.

 

Here I do think you are been panglossian.

 

These children are already been raised in an environment lacking a mother and a father, they are living in an institution which no matter how successful it is, is basically lacking in the love and nurture a home can give a child.

 

The issue is how can the state change these children’s environment to improve their circumstances.

 

Please note the relative clauses here: improve. This is reality and not some ideal.

 

You are very strongly saying that the love and nurture a gay couple will be able to give a child is not worthwhile. That keeping a child in care, awaiting your ideal (and maybe non existent) candidate to come along, is better than placing them in a gay home.

 

I really have to say that is an incredible statement: boy you must hate gays.

 

You go on about immature 18 year old gay men and 16 year old teenagers being handed children to be adopted. FFS we are meant to be talking about a vetting process to approve the adoption of a child. Guess what these people will more than likely be refused permission to adopt. But what about a stable gay couple who have been living together for 15 years, one works as a professional, the other cares for the household. They have a nice home, in a nice area, are responsible people, care for a dog, a cat, and a goldfish. Is it really totally impossible to say these people could take a child in care and improve their life in a positive way?

 

The vetting process insists the family the child is being adopted into provides stability, a safe environment, love and nurture.

 

You seem to be saying this cannot be provided by gays, no matter what. Why not?

 

There is no doubt there will be complications and difficulties in raising a child in a gay household. But guess what these complications and difficulties happen in all households. There would be similar problems, and advantages, in placing a child into in a mormon household. Were you never bullied for being different DjDan? But the issue is whether these difficulties outweigh the advantages.

 

Would you really leave a child in care, verses providing them with a vetted, approved, monitored, loving environment with a gay couple.

 

Are you saying it is impossible to vet gays to ensure this is the case; and that all gays will fail the test.

 

That strikes me as extreme arrogance, and one that isn’t based on any rational analysis but one tempered by ideology.

 

Unfortunately not every child gets “the privilege of having a mother and a father”. But the more children who are taken out of care and placed in a loving environment the better. I find it inconceivable that in the 1 in a hundred case where a gay couple turns up wanting to adopt it is totally impossible for them to be seen as being acceptable.

 

I’m fully aware the Catholic Church, the Muslim brotherhood and by the looks of things the Mormons disagree, but I just wonder why these organizations have this point of view. I am still certain its bigotry, pure and simple – writing off an entire group of people, no matter what their circumstances are, just because of one facet of their lives.

 

You are so certain that this one facet totally destroys their ability to care and nurture a child. And proudly state you don’t want to investigate if you might be wrong. Oh let ignorance prevail.

[Lonan3]

I’m fully aware the Catholic Church, the Muslim brotherhood and by the looks of things the Mormons disagree, but I just wonder why these organizations have this point of view.

 

And the Anglican church - see post above.

[Pragmatopian]

Gay adoption is a tricky issue. My instinct is that gay couples should not be allowed to apply to adopt purely because in the ordinary course of events a gay relationship would never lead to a child. Most heterosexual couples who adopt have either already had children of their own or have been prevented from having their own children because of infertitlity. Gay couples are in a rather different situation.

 

Please do not misconstrue me. I'm a firm believer that people should not suffer discrimination in work and social settings because of their sexual orientation, and there are many excellent gay teachers, nurses and carers who do a great job of teaching and caring for children. I just feel that the parental roles should probably be fulfilled by a couple who could (at least theoretically) naturally produce a child. I am open to persuasion, but have yet to be persuaded by the arguments that have been raised.

[Lonan3]

Gay adoption is a tricky issue. My instinct is that gay couples should not be allowed to apply to adopt purely because in the ordinary course of events a gay relationship would never lead to a child. Most heterosexual couples who adopt have either already had children of their own or have been prevented from having their own children because of infertitlity. Gay couples are in a rather different situation.

 

Please do not misconstrue me. I'm a firm believer that people should not suffer discrimination in work and social settings because of their sexual orientation, and there are many excellent gay teachers, nurses and carers who do a great job of teaching and caring for children. I just feel that the parental roles should probably be fulfilled by a couple who could (at least theoretically) naturally produce a child. I am open to persuasion, but have yet to be persuaded by the arguments that have been raised.

Thank you. A very lucid expression of my own thoughts on the subject.

[Miss Take]

Virgin birth - no father involved

 

 

 

Food for thought - that's all I'm sayin'