Catholic Adoption Charity Allowed To Discriminate

[- Paul -]

A catholic group implementing a policy on an issue of child welfare?

 

They should be looking a bit closer to home if child 'welfare' is that important.

 

Like their own church.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8575734.stm

[Topaz]

Do we have the seeds of a new religion?

 

Could be. Let's see if anything germinates.

 

They could have this bloke as their patron saint,

 

St. James Bird, Blessed

Feastday: March 25

1593

 

English martyr. Born in Winchester and raised as a Protestant, he embraced the Catholic Church at the age of nineteen. James visited Douai College in Reims, but he returned to England. There he refused to take the Oath of Supremacy and was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Winchester in his native city. He was beatified in 1929.

 

I bet getting beautified was a great comfort to him

[Pat Ayres]

"Some children get great role models, some get shafted thats the luck of the divine draw."

 

If that's a joke, it's a sick one. If it isn't and you didn't mean it like that you should think more before you write anything. Actually you should just think before you write anything anyway.

[John Wright]

I post as somone who was adopted, a gay man and somone who has fostered as a single man.

 

The problem with all of the objections to gay couples adopting is that single or staright gay men and women can adopt and that wholly inappropriate heterosexual couples and singles have been allowed to adopt and that some in the catholic church have had young people placed in their care on trust and which trust they have abused and covered up abused

 

If we were to substitute a man or woman or a black person or an asian person for the homosexual couples which the Catholic care Society wants to be allowed to discriminate against we would immediately see how objectionable the shennanigans of the charities who wish to discriminate really are

 

There is no eveidence that children palced with or brought up by sam sex partners or gay or lesbian singles are abused, nor is there any evidence that they are disadvantaged. Indeed the opposite appears to be the case, higher disposable incomes and the fact that the world is watching, seems to result in very loving and stable adoptions that work well

 

At the end of the day let us not forget that it is the welfare of the child which must come first not the religiuos foibles of the natural parents or the society which places the children

[mæŋksmən]

"Some children get great role models, some get shafted thats the luck of the divine draw."

 

If that's a joke, it's a sick one. If it isn't and you didn't mean it like that you should think more before you write anything. Actually you should just think before you write anything anyway.

 

 

Your reply actually shows the gutter level your at more than anything.

[Pat Ayres]

Nowhere near boy.

 

I've fostered many young people and have found gay couples, male and female, much preferable to religious people.

They're (yes that is how it's spelt) only reason for refusal is religious and we all know what a crock of shit that is. Never see a cartoon of Jebus with a woman do we?

[mæŋksmən]

That reply is just side stepping the filth you tried to introduce the reply before.

 

I really would think you were some kind of maggot if i didnt know already that you are.

[Pat Ayres]

That reply is just side stepping the filth you tried to introduce the reply before.

 

I really would think you were some kind of maggot if i didnt know already that you are.

I knew you'd give yourself away eventually, took your time getting the computer hooked up didn't you. Now I know who you are it explains a lot. Byeeeee

[Lao]

although john is right in what he says, it worries me that some people would have to make such a mental substitute in order to understand the discrimination that is going on here. Not only could you substitute the "client" to get the message clearer, but just imagine if we were talking about a different sevice, Would an exclusivively catholic hospital by within their rights to deny heath care to gay people? how about a catholic soup kitchen, justified in letting homosexuals starve?

 

The discrimination is clear, so clear in fact that if they cant understand it, thats a whopping big indication that the catholic adoption Agency is not capable of making an unbiased descision about the worth of a prospectiveadoption aplication.

 

The whole idea of a "catholic Adoption Charity" or any other group based adoption agency is misguided and outdated.

 

If, however the actual care of the children was done outside of the catholic adoption agency, at a secular, goverment run facility that anyone could make an application for adoption at, but the church also ran its own drive to boost the rate of successful adoptions amongst members of its own congregation, i see that as a win-win situation for the children, as the actual vetting and acceptance/denial of the applicant could be done without religious pressure, but the church could still work to find homes fo the children.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It is useful to make analogies, substitutes or comparisons in particular respects because of the inability or general lack of awareness in terms of the issue in question.

 

In respect of homophobia, it is useful to make a substitute with race. That is because we have reached a stage (through the fighting done by people in society and through other forms of education) where people are more able to understand racism, recognise its operation, and understand why racism is not acceptable. (But there is still a long way to go in terms of race).

With homophobia, however, things have not progressed as far, for a number of reasons and many people still have absolutely no idea of what homophobia is. Even when they are able to recognise homophobic behaviour, they make value judgements that weigh up whether one thing is more important than another and are more willing to tolerate homophobia than they would racism in particular circumstances. Yet the reasons why we find prejudice and oppression to be bad or wrong are the same and (roughly) the reasons for why such oppression exists is the same. Society, therefore, find homophobia more acceptable than racism, but there is no good justification for this. The simplest thing to do is to make the comparison.

 

I actually think discrimination is acceptable in VERY particular circumstances. But this issue goes past discrimination. I am quite happy to have the State sit back and not interfere with a Catholic adoption agency if it wishes to discriminate. But it has to remain utterly independent and fund itself. And for those who recognise the wrongfulness of their beliefs and practices - they can protest. But for the agency to receive any charitable status is completely wrong. The State should not endorse or support such organisations.

 

The whole idea of a "catholic Adoption Charity" or any other group based adoption agency is misguided and outdated.

Is it? I think religion and spiritual belief is outdated and childish, but not the setting up of an agency. It's who these Catholic are and what they want to do. Carte blanche - if they do it off their own back.

[Celt]

I think the Catholic Church are wrong to do this.

 

 

At the end of the day let us not forget that it is the welfare of the child which must come first not the religiuos foibles of the natural parents or the society which places the children

 

I'm a Catholic and i'm against Gay Adoption. However, please read on and find out why before you go scrambling for the qoute button.

 

Although i'm a Catholic, i'm also a Realist. I don't take the Bible as fact but use it as a guide. There are many things which are stated or written as Law in the Bible which determine a definate, " Right and Wrong ". Most of these are in the Old Testiment, so would be followed by the Jewish Faith also. " Man laying with Man " is one off them.

 

However, the New Testiment is where i find most things which help me when i look at myself and others. The greatest teaching or, idealism if you want, in the whole Bible is, imo, found in the New Testiment. And that is the teaching from Jesus, off Tolerence.

 

My religious views and beliefs are not the point though. The point is Tolerence.

 

I have no problem with "Gays" at all. Partners, Civil Partners and Marrige give me no problem whatsoever. In a discusion with friends about Gay marrige i was asked my views and replied i thought it was ok. As they were all against it, they asked why would Gay people want to get married? I replied, " Well, maybe they love each other ". That left them speachless and i thought, how single minded they must be not to have even thought off that. I prefer to be Tolerent towards others in general and not assume i'm right, therefore, they're wrong attitude and in no way ever think i'm perfect. I have " Gay" friends who know and respect and understand my reason against adoption. The main thing they like doing is winding me up by calling each other " Gay" in my company as i find it a dirogatry term. I tell them they're not "Gay", they're just as different as anyone else.

 

My reasons against it is not because off the sexuallity of the Parents. They can be a loving, caring, well provided family as next. It could also be as shitty, cruel, violent and fucked up as the next. They are people first, there sexuallity doesn't make them a good or bad person.

 

My thoughts , and i'm sure,everyone elses, look towards the phyiscal and mental wefare of the child.

 

The above should show that the physical side is a lottery in some ways. No-matter what upbringing the parents had, things could, and do, go wrong.

 

My problem arises with the Mental welfare off the child and this brings in the Tolerence as i mentioned before.

 

Imo, a child adopted by a "Gay" couple would be looked down on by alot of other parents. The whispers and opinionated gossip will be there and directed towards the child as well as the parents. Other kids at school and as the child grows up, will make remarks, tease, bully, all becuase off the sexuallity of the parents.

 

We all know how cruel kids can be and think on how you would feel if someone was taking the piss out off your parents. I'm sure an adopted child would grow to love them like parents.

 

Whilst society is now more tolerent towards gay couples, there are still far to many who will ridicule and belittle with cruel and hateful remarks. I'd ask gay couples, and i asked the gay friends i have, would you like to see or have a child you adopted, subjected to the hate, cruelty and mental angiush that you had when younger. And most probably still get today at times ? I wouldn't. All answered no.

 

As most adult gays would have gone through this as they got older, why should a child?

 

So as i hope you will see i don't object to gays adopting becuse they're "Gay". It's becuase of the intolerent, bigotted, hateful and cruel part of society who would not except that gays can be good parents or cannot see pass their sexuallity and judge them as people.

 

Until more off these so-called high moral, fine upstanding and righteous members off society become more tolerent towards the idea and treatments towards a gay family afterwards, it'll be a no from me i'm afraid.

 

Hopefully things will change in the future, however by looking at how immigrants are treated and thought about, it seems it could be some time. Which is a pity as i'm sure that out there, there are some very fine gay couples who would give a child another chance at a good life. Sad that society can't.

 

 

LDV said.

 

I think religion and spiritual belief is outdated and childish, but not the setting up of an agency. It's who these Catholic are and what they want to do. Carte blanche

 

Pat Ayres said.

 

I've fostered many young people and have found gay couples, male and female, much preferable to religious people.

They're (yes that is how it's spelt) only reason for refusal is religious and we all know what a crock of shit that is. Never see a cartoon of Jebus with a woman do we?

 

 

Two very definate statements. Both very opionated. Not all Catholics are the same and not all religious people are Bible Thumpers. Or have you met them all?

 

Two fine examples off the intolerence and narrow minded " If i think it's a crock of shit, outdated and childish, fuck the lot off them and how they feel " remarks that people can come up with.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I have " Gay" friends who know and respect and understand my reason against adoption. The main thing they like doing is winding me up by calling each other " Gay" in my company as i find it a dirogatry term. I tell them they're not "Gay", they're just as different as anyone else.

Let me get this clear, you think 'gay' is a derogatory term? If so, then you are incorrect, it most certainly isn't.

 

My problem arises with the Mental welfare off the child and this brings in the Tolerence as i mentioned before.

I understand from reading your post why you feel that adoption is not a good idea, i.e. because of the welfare of the child due to homophobia. But it is homophobia that leads to bullying that is the issue here, the way people react to it based on their homophobia. It isn't simply some 'given' because they have gay parents.

I understand it, in the sense that you're protecting any child from any possible homophobia and that may be the choice of some gay couples who have considered adopting. But such bullying is not a given, although it may be likely in less liberal location and one where people are not as open-minded as the Isle Of Man, compared with a UK city. And things may and I hope will improve as homophobia is continually tackled.

 

But there is also the onus on those other parents to act responsibly. If other parents looked down on another child (who is just a child) compared with others then that is no concern of the child's. If directed to the child, such parents are pretty despicable people. Completely aside from the moral and ethical outlook, the child didn't choose to exist. These parents are also responsible to teaching their children to be open-minded and less ignorant of differences.

 

I would also say that such bullying or social stigma is not a given. I have two friends who were brought up by gay parents who didn't experience any bother because of their familial situation. But then those people did have the fortune of being brought up in London.

 

The issue really is one where homophobia and homophobic bullying needs to be tackled. Again, not something to do with the matter of gay adoption itself.

If I were to adopt, however unlikely, I would have serious concerns about bringing a child on the Isle of Man or in a rural community.

 

Two very definate statements. Both very opionated. Not all Catholics are the same and not all religious people are Bible Thumpers. Or have you met them all?

 

Two fine examples off the intolerence and narrow minded " If i think it's a crock of shit, outdated and childish, fuck the lot off them and how they feel " remarks that people can come up with.

It's not about thinking all religious people are the same and just remarking based on the more devoted. My criticism of religious is based on the beliefs themselves. Only when people act on them in a manner that is 'negative' would it make me dislike such a person or have serious issues with them. Although it is hard to have respect for any religious person when behave in certain ways due to faith, i.e. praying for something or repenting for sins through praying.

 

But yeah, I despise religion (especially Christianity, as it is ugly and ridiculous) - just as I despise of a number of things that I find offensive to who I am (as a largely rational human being) and as someone who would like to see others think and act like intelligent people with an interest in the truth, and not holding beliefs for no good reason and then acting on them. I don't know about tolerance, I can't stop you believing, you can believe what you want.

It most certainly isn't narrow-minded to recognise religious belief as childish and outdated. I know enough about why the religious person believes things for no good reason and what the Christian good is generally held to be to get an idea. I also think someone who is 30 and believes in the tooth fairy to be childish or someone who holds it to be true that the Manx fairies are real to be so. Belief in God is no different. And it's outdated because I think we as a society have moved on to an era where people have an interest in getting to the reasons why our world and the universe operates as it does, without simply filling in the gaps with 'God'. This isn't Palestine in 5AD.

 

If that fucks you off then fair enough but I find Catholicism to be offensive, but if it's any consolation - I do think you are better than your beliefs.

[Evil Goblin]

" Would an exclusivively catholic hospital by within their rights to deny heath care to gay people? how about a catholic soup kitchen, justified in letting homosexuals starve?"

 

Much as it may irritate you the answer has to be "Yes - they are justified". If I establish an organisation to help people then it should be up to me to decide who I want to help and whom I do not want to help. That is my basic human right - I should not be forced to help anyone I do not wish to help. Whatever you might think of my motivations or reasons for not helping certain people, they are my reasons and are just as vwlid as yours, whether anyone else agrees with them or not.

[jimbms]

I believe Evil Goblin has made a valid point here and that is, although we may not like what some organisations do or the way they do things, the fact is if the save one child or stop one person starving or take them off the streets then they have done good, each and everyone of us can freely pick which charities we want to or don't want to donate too and nobody has the right to say who we should donate to even though they may not like it, a good example is I select to only give to Manx charities and refuse to give to international ones, some may not like this but tough shit it is my money and my choice and nobody has the right to dictate whom I give it to. In the same way organisations have the right to select who they wish to help even if people do not like this, if you feel strongly about it then vote with your wallet and make sure you do not help them. And yes to answer a previous question, it is just the same as say the red crescent refusing to help non muslim's or a European organisation not accepting non Europeans to aid or an Afro American organisation refusing to let white people adopt a black baby. all are wrong but the all also do some good.

[John Wright]

But if they did discriminate as suggested that would break the law and lose them their charitable status. Charitable status equals public subsidy. Not acceptable.

 

I have met my birth mother, the CoE adoption society took me away, whilst she was out of the room on a pretext, without warning and then searched her room and destroyed some baby cothes she had kept and a photo she had manged to take. My adoptive mother died when I was young. My adoptive father was the best role model I could have had.

 

I do not feel discrimniated against or disadvantaged but enriched anmd that is true of most adoptees whether adopted by singles couples married or gay