La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7465537/Catholic-adoption-agency-wins-gay-rights-exemption-ruling.html This is an really unfortunate situation. The problem is with this 2007 law which could prevent gay adoption agencies from being sued from heterosexual couples. Hopefully this law will be looked at again and then efforts will be made to look again at these Catholic adoption agencies. But the issue for me is that some or all of these adoption agencies receive tax exemptions/relief. It should be a matter of either getting them to agree to adopt to gay couples or remove State sanctioning by recognising them as charities and the State should completely sever any relationships with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 La La land, it's nice here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mæŋksmən Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Utter bollox LDV. And if the ruling can help restore some semblence of sense back into adoption and help restore the damage done to Child adoption by the equality act then fair play. Its the kids being adopted who are the important issue, not the feelings of potential gay parents. Just because its legal but thrust onto us by some new labour lovees and extremely vocal pressure groups, does not make it right. And if the silent majority stood up and were counted every now and then ludicrous shitty laws like it would never exist. Its nothing to do with intolerence of homosexuality its to do with children having a mother and a father as role models. Some children get great role models, some get shafted thats the luck of the divine draw. But if nature intended for kids to be brought up by 2 gay men then gay men would be able to get pregnant. i know gay people abhore being viewed as different, but you are, if you were not diffent from the majority you wouldnt need so many pressure groups and the onus is on gay people to recognise they are infact different the same as a man and woman are different but all are treated as equals in the eyes of the law as it should be. as i stated its the childs welfare thats important not political quango inspired bullshit. I am not trying to hurt your feelings but some differences do make a difference too many and we are talking kids who will carry the experiences from their childhood for the rest of their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 18, 2010 Author Share Posted March 18, 2010 Semblance of sense back into things? Nah, sense hasn't been applied. Just because you have people who have utterly crazy beliefs which lead them to endorse their bigotry doesn't make their decisions and policies right. And if the silent majority ever did have a say over the voices of the unfairly discriminated then we'd have a far uglier society than we do now. It has everything to do with intolerance of homosexuality - because it is about treating a father and mother role model as the only valid one. And if nature intended (even though it isn't conscious, did you know?) for straight people to be parents then we wouldn't have adoption problems, as irresponsible straight people would have some idea as to when to get pregnant and how to look after their children. Nature isn't some conscious thing, so let's forget that silly point. What do you mean many gay people abhore being considered different? Well...we're not straight. That's different. There are massive variances but gay people have a different outlook on many things from straight people. Of course we are different. What's your point? As for the child's welfare, this is paramount. But the onus should be on the agencies as to the course they wish to take. Either you are on your own with no charitable status and no state support or connections or you stop discriminating. There's a choice there. It's one where people either have to abide by their infantile beliefs and nasty bigotry or get over it. They shouldn't be allowed a penny of taxpayers money or freebies when they undertake such discriminatory behaviour. And if they allowed adoption to same-sex couples it would be better for the children! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 The main thing about this is that although these agencies through thier beliefs have decided not to allow homosexual couples to adopt there are other angencies that will, so as has been said the child is of paramount importance and if this agency can place children in loving homes then they are doing a good job, the fact that a small group get offended is of no consiquence when put against the life of a child. What you are advocating is that this group should be made to stop placing children with adoptive parent and to make the child suffer because it offends you. Tough on you the child must always come first no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 19, 2010 Author Share Posted March 19, 2010 If these people didn't have childish beliefs then they would be able to offer homes and parents to more childish. They are actually limiting themselves to whom they will be willing to arrange adoption to. Yes, they are currently providing an important service, but agencies with State links that have homophobic policies should not exist in our society - not just because it is offensive, but because it is a reflection of oppressive understandings and behaviours in our society that the State should have absolutely nothing to do with. The State has the power to take over the adoption agencies and run them itself if such agencies decide they cannot continue in their role after finding that they either cannot exist without tax reductions (for charity status) and no state support. No service need be lost if the State did the right thing. Look at it this way, if these agencies forbade adoption to black or mixed race couples on the basis of belief - but really because it satisfies their bigotry, then would you think it right to let that agency continue in that role when it is organisation receiving endorsement and financial backing from the State (the public tax payer)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 In answer to your last comment, yes I would so long as the priority of the child came first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 19, 2010 Author Share Posted March 19, 2010 In answer to your last comment, yes I would so long as the priority of the child came first. In which case...withdraw support for the agencies and if they get into financial trouble and cannot survive then have the State move in to run them. There are other options than either closure or discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starchild Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Taken from the linked article: 'The adoption agency claimed that a clause of the legislation – Regulation 18 – should permit charities to continue to refuse gay couples if the stated aim of the charity was to provide services to people of a particular sexual orientation. The loophole was inserted to ensure that gay charities could not be sued for discrimination by heterosexual couples.' Correct me if I'm wrong but the very thing that is stopping gay couples adopting from a Catholic adoption agency is a loophole that was brought in to ensure gay charities couldn't be sued for discrimination against straight people... Huh. Ironic. So long as the children are ultimately safe, loved and cared for properly who gives? Plenty of other adoption agencies out there who won't take major issue to a gay couple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 In which case...withdraw support for the agencies and if they get into financial trouble and cannot survive then have the State move in to run them. There are other options than either closure or discrimination. Amazing how supportive you can be of state intervention when it suits your particular cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 19, 2010 Author Share Posted March 19, 2010 quote name='starchild' date='19 March 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1269005025' post='519657'] So long as the children are ultimately safe, loved and cared for properly who gives? Plenty of other adoption agencies out there who won't take major issue to a gay couple. But that's not the point. It's the State connection and endorsement which is wrong Amazing how supportive you can be of state intervention when it suits your particular cause.It's not amazing. It is pragmatic and justified. Better in that respect to have it for a short while on that role than not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starchild Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Then let me ask you this LDV. If this was the case of an adoption agency run by homosexuals, with state connections and endorsements, being sued because they had been blatantly discriminating against straight people would you be angered by their state connections and endorsements also? Thought not. I don't see why the Catholics who run the adoption agency should be made to go against their views to appease a minority wishing to adopt from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 19, 2010 Author Share Posted March 19, 2010 Think again. Why would I support the discrimination of heterosexuals - IF, that is, we are talking about a situation where people went to a gay adoption agency and were refused service. This doesn't happen in practice though. What happens is that gay adoption agencies exist to offer a advise to gay people who are considering adopting and who will have particular questions and concerns and who don't want to be faced with any homophobia when going through the whole rigmarole of adopting. But they shouldn't turn away straight people. Yet I think it unlikely that straight couples would use a gay adoption agency. The Catholic situation is different, it is an outright refusal. That's not acceptable when they are receiving state tax cuts, as the State must be anti-discriminatory and opposed to oppression. It doesn't matter about beliefs. If Britain had an agency where its members believed in the magic omnipresent budgie called Geoffrey and followed the religion associated with the budgie which teaches that gay people are just awful and shouldn't adopt, it doesn't make it right that such people get state money or cuts in setting up a charity and use their nutty beliefs as an excuse to oppress or discriminate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 oi! leave Geoffrey alone his word is sacred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 Do we have the seeds of a new religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.