Catholic Adoption Charity Allowed To Discriminate

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I fully agree Lao religion is a leech on society and should not be allowed to select who is given help, in fact I personally think all religions should be banned from

giving direct aid and instead be made to put funds into a central aid system,

I don't see any problem with such agencies if they do not discriminate at all, as ridiculous as the religious might be. It would be wrong to use the State to ban them just because they are religious. What if there was a Christian agency that helped disabled people? If that agency doesn't discriminate it is ok in my books.

 

Nobody in need should ever be turned away by any aid agency, but it happens and in reality we need to ask should we stop them operating and therefore make the ones they do help suffer because of our own beliefs...Well this is a problem. If all that exists in a locality are agencies that have beliefs which lead people or serve as an excuse for discrimination then people in the area then it makes it difficult to access such aid. But then such charities should not receive a penny from the State nor have any cuts in tax and the State could set up its own parelled agencies to offer aid.

 

Evil Goblin -

This introduces a separate discussion - should charities which do good, albeit only to sections of society they approve of, be denied charitable ststus because they discriminate?

Absolutely. They can exist as charities, but not be favoured and endorsed by the State. Not if we would want to live in a society that at least pretends to want to tackle the disgusting repression of particular people out of ignorance and prejudice.

 

Seems to me like an anti-child care position with a section of adult society prepared to allow children to suffer so that their own prejudices can be furthered. Not a very pleasant view!

I think a few of us have already advocated some very fair alternatives and generous choices for such charities: go it alone with State sanction and support or change practices, and if a 'service gap' arises because a Catholic agency collapses - use State finance to get people in the community to establish a secular agency.

 

I understand your point, Lao, but remember that there are many people who honestly and firmly believe that certain discriminations are justified. By legislating against them you are simply enforcing your views on them when, ultimately, it is a moral question and hence totally subjective.

Maybe there are people who believe oppression is ok. In other words, maybe there are those who think racism, for example, is just fine. Does that mine such people have good justification for their position? I haven't seen a good justification - all seems to be based of ignorance.

 

It is subjective, but it all depends on the moral standards that we would want to uphold in a society, such as democracy and values that eschew close-mindedness and ignorance and bigotry.

 

Apart from the justification issue (which is entirely a matter of individual conscience and opinion) I find that I am in agreement with you, LDV! Pass me the aspirin!

Before you grab those pills, let's be clear that such a pespective is circumstantial, which is not to say I have a whimsical attitude to it. To explain, racism and homophobia for example are still massive problems in society. If it were the case that people were discriminated because of their race or sexuality when it came to using services and/or purchasing products and faces an appreciable limit on their ability to access services then this is a problem - one that isn't justified for it to continue. It shouldn't happen. Regardless of the justification for the existence of the State's authority, I am quite happy to see the State use its authority to stop such oppression. However, if we are talking about a small group of organisations that offer a very specific and limited service when many alternatives exist then I would be happy with the State holding back.

 

Jimbms

In fact I regard allowing social workers looking after children in care as dangerous as leaving them with Michael Jackson or a Catholic Priest.

Why do you say that? Potentially it could be. However, when you have children whose parents physically or mentally abuse them or when you have children who are being neglected because of their parents drug use, for example, then social services have to step in. Some children HAVE to be removed and it doesn't come easily. Unfortunately, there is no community to take charge, just the State.

[jimbms]

LDV sometimes I do really think you do selective cherry picking of peoples quotes just so you can argue.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If you mean in respect of your comment on social services then the quote I mentioned can stand independent of your other comments on why you didn't explicitly refer to a State-run Central agency. You say that putting a child in 'social care' is as dangerous as leaving them with paedophiles or suspect individuals based on their sexual preferences. I think that is a bit silly.

[jimbms]

That is exactly what I mean, I would say it is quite obvious I meant in general, but yet again you select a section that best suites your needs.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

That is exactly what I mean, I would say it is quite obvious I meant in general, but yet again you select a section that best suites your needs.

Right well, explain how the meaning of such a (seemingly) clear statement changes due to sentences that precede or follow.

I think you are just making an incredible annoying fuss because you can't admit that you made a stupid statement.

[jimbms]

Right well, explain how the meaning of such a (seemingly) clear statement changes due to sentences that precede or follow.

I think you are just making an incredible annoying fuss because you can't admit that you made a stupid statement.

 

[Max Power]

I am not sure that adoption by two people of the same sex is totally healthy for the child. A child needs tha balance given by male and female parents to understand the nuances of both sexes. I don't, however, think it matters if the couple happen to be gay or not, providing that they are sensitive and discreet and allow the child to develop their own sexuality.

 

As far as the Catholic church is concerned, as a major religion in this world, they are entitled to their 'childish beliefs'. Much like the Muslim religion and many others, they do not recognise homosexuality as an acceptable way to lead your life. This is a separate issue to the adoption one. Nations have been founded on religious law, for better or worse, but it has been used for hundreds of years to control populations. It is going to be one hell of a task to change religious tolerance of homosexuality, you can hardly expect them to go against their fundemental beliefs, which I believe are wrong!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I would have to ask why you think it is important to know the 'nuances' of both sexes, for what reasons is this necessary? Do you mean for the purposes of finding sexual partners in the future, developing a child's gender role, or maybe something else?

 

What do you think of heterosexual parents where the father is hardly around or doesn't play much of a role in the upbringing of the child? Or single parent upbringing? Or less than ideal parenting by a straight couple, as I think it might be easy for those who have slight issues about gay adoption to start slipping into some idealistic vision of heterosexual parenting to frame their outlook on this matter.

 

I am very interested in the mention of discreetness, why should. Why discreet?

 

As far as the Catholic church is concerned, as a major religion in this world, they are entitled to their 'childish beliefs'. Much like the Muslim religion and many others, they do not recognise homosexuality as an acceptable way to lead your life.

Not really sure what significance your statement has.

Anybody is entitled to have an opinion, perspective, or belief. People can think what they want - so what does it matter whether people are entitled to believe things?

It does matter, however, when they act on those beliefs to the detriment of others or society. It matters not how many people are deluded or what they are deluded about.

 

This is a separate issue to the adoption one. Nations have been founded on religious law, for better or worse, but it has been used for hundreds of years to control populations. It is going to be one hell of a task to change religious tolerance of homosexuality, you can hardly expect them to go against their fundemental beliefs, which I believe are wrong!

Well the bigots in the Church and its members feel their ideas on homosexuality are reinforced by what is in the Bible and do come to have their ideas based on the Bible, it is mutually reinforcing.

 

And yes, it might be a difficult job to change people's religious tolerance of homosexuality. Better to actually tackle the issue of irrational belief in society, which might come from taking a more mature attitude to absurd, immoral, dangerous, and childish beliefs that deserve no respect. I tend to find that many people respect the faith that others have and admire religious belief - there's definitely a long way to go.

What we can do it to challenge and stop any oppressive behaviour by religious people.

[Max Power]

Kids need a balanced upbringing in order to form their thinking. Two females may bring up an effeminate boy, for example, with no understanding of male traits, likewise for male foster parents.

 

I do not agree with single parent situations if they can be avoided. Likewise poor parenting in general. These are a different matter in any case.

 

Discretion in behaviour which is demonstrated to the child, I don't think it is right to promote any sexual lifestyle as the child should be able to choose when the time is right.

 

I don't agree with some of the beliefs of various religions, but I can't change them. All that can be done is to passively resist them, which a lot of people are with Christianity which is going through a credibility crisis. The only thing that will sort this out is time, or a second coming!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

And what is the problem with an effeminate boy, were it to be true that two women would be more likely to bring up a child who is more effeminate (not that I'd agree)?

 

There idea that a boy/man should be masculine or a girl/women be feminine is an expectation in behaviour that heterosexuals place on children and adults because it is what they want. It bolsters the relatively recent heterosexual identities that exist today.

As you recognise, gender is a societal construct, these are expectations that are imposed or learned from what is expected of people in society.

There isn't anything wrong in not following those expectations.

 

And it would appear no more likely that a female couple would bring up an effeminate boy than a male couple. That is because neither same-sex couple is as likely as the other to hold to the heterosexual gender expectations.

 

I do not agree with single parent situations if they can be avoided. Likewise poor parenting in general. These are a different matter in any case.

Really? I don't feel they are. Because I think those who have an issue with gay parenting are often straight people who have wishful thinking on how good their parenting is. What I mean is that it is seen that the impact on development from having same-sex parents is worse in their eyes from aspects or instances of parenting where parents were doing the right thing by their child most of the time.

As a comparative with single parents, you might have a parent who is there all the time for their child and the child knows it. And there could be other parents who don't really give their child the time they need or are maybe really strict, or they could be parents who fight a lot. I would hold the impact of fighting on the child's state of mind as more detrimental than the impact of having a single parent, for example.

 

Discretion in behaviour which is demonstrated to the child, I don't think it is right to promote any sexual lifestyle as the child should be able to choose when the time is right.

This is actually a rather homophobic outlook - it is understandable in the sense that you may know no better by not recognising what sexuality is, but it is homophobic!

 

Sexuality is not a discreet thing. You can't hide it and people constantly display it in society. I know my parent sexuality - my parents indiscretions were the result of having me and then my recognition of their coupling, the fact that they had sex in order to bring me into existence, their behaviour around each other, their values that they openly espouse, the fact that they are married, what they wear, how they behave in terms of gender expectations. This is all sexuality. And not something that they could be discreet about.

 

How do you think the situation for a homosexual couple is or should be any different?

 

It would be some cheek to pass judgement on gay couples promoting their sexuality to a child when heterosexual people and parents do it all the time.

 

I don't agree with some of the beliefs of various religions, but I can't change them. All that can be done is to passively resist them, which a lot of people are with Christianity which is going through a credibility crisis.

Depends what those beliefs are and how they are put into practice. Some should be resisted aggressively if they do harm to society. Some are benign and we can let people crack on in their deluded world.

[Evil Goblin]

LDV, you have said

 

"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."

 

And yet you claim to want to live in a democracy!! Clearly a democracy where what you think and say goes and to hell with those who disagree with you! I suggest you get your brain in order so that you stop posting contradictory things.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Let me re-phrase to better explain the point. If the majority of people in society did have ability to overrule people who were being oppressed by the majoirty then it would be an uglier society, and it wouldn't be a democratic one. If 99% of society deemed it necessary or desirable to maintain a system where gay people couldn't have their relationships recognised by law - the result would not be democratic.

[jimbms]

If 99% of society deemed it necessary or desirable to maintain a system where gay people couldn't have their relationships recognised by law - the result would not be democratic.

So if they went with the 1% and banned the law against the vote of the majority would this be democratic or rule of the majority by the imposition of the ideals of the minority or is that a dictatorship.

 

Just to assist here are three of the definitions of democracy note the last one it says majority not 100%.

• the political orientation of those who favour government by the people or by their elected representatives
• a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
• majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Just to assist here are three of the definitions of democracy note the last one it says majority not 100%.

 

* the political orientation of those who favour government by the people or by their elected representatives

* a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

* majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

 

That in italics is democracy. People governing themselves The basis of democracy is to ensure individual freedom and equality in society. If you back to my example, if you have an issue where the 99% of the people want to prevent gay people having their relationships recognise then you have 99% of society being stopped from having the equality and freedom they should. - and I doubt you agree with oppression, even if you don't recognise instances of it.

 

If the 99% don't get their way they are no worse off except in having their oppressive behaviour stopped.

 

Majority rule is not democracy, just majoritarianism. You can have majoritarianism and find that the system or process is not democratic.

[Evil Goblin]

LDV - you appear to have a semantics problem - what you describe is NOT a democracy - it is Anarchy.