Church loses opt-out fight over gay adoptions

B

BlaznFattyz

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Roman Catholic adoptions agencies yesterday lost their battle to opt out of new laws banning discrimination against homosexual couples when Tony Blair announced that there would be "no exemptions" for faith-based groups.
The Prime Minister said in a statement that the new rules would not come into force until the end of 2008. Until then there would be a "statutory duty" for religious agencies to refer gay couples to other agencies.

Earlier, David Cameron risked a split with Tory traditionalists by announcing that he was against allowing Catholic adoption agencies to opt out of new laws banning discrimination against gay couples. He called for a compromise that would give the Catholic agencies time to find a way of dealing with the regulations — possibly by developing twinning arrangements with other adoption services.

Last week the leader of Catholics in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, warned that the agencies would close rather than accept rules that required them to hand over babies to gay couples...

Cont'd

Some questions to consider:

Should Catholics be exempt from the new laws? Are they simply upholding a principle that many other people support? Are the consciences of Christians being trampled over? Or would an opt out make a mockery of the concept of anti-discrimination laws? Is this simply an excuse to perpetuate homophobia? Is the Church "blackmailing" the Government, as some gay rights activists have complained? Should the Government be offering members of any religion exemptions from any laws? Can religions expect to have their beliefs and lifestyles respected, if they refuse to accept those of other people?
 
BlaznFattyz said:
Roman Catholic adoptions agencies yesterday lost their battle to opt out of new laws banning discrimination against homosexual couples when Tony Blair announced that there would be "no exemptions" for faith-based groups.
The Prime Minister said in a statement that the new rules would not come into force until the end of 2008. Until then there would be a "statutory duty" for religious agencies to refer gay couples to other agencies.

Earlier, David Cameron risked a split with Tory traditionalists by announcing that he was against allowing Catholic adoption agencies to opt out of new laws banning discrimination against gay couples. He called for a compromise that would give the Catholic agencies time to find a way of dealing with the regulations — possibly by developing twinning arrangements with other adoption services.

Last week the leader of Catholics in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, warned that the agencies would close rather than accept rules that required them to hand over babies to gay couples...

Cont'd

Some questions to consider:

Should Catholics be exempt from the new laws? Are they simply upholding a principle that many other people support? Are the consciences of Christians being trampled over? Or would an opt out make a mockery of the concept of anti-discrimination laws? Is this simply an excuse to perpetuate homophobia? Is the Church "blackmailing" the Government, as some gay rights activists have complained? Should the Government be offering members of any religion exemptions from any laws? Can religions expect to have their beliefs and lifestyles respected, if they refuse to accept those of other people?
Click to expand...

Since the Catholic adoption agencies are "private" agencies, they should be respected for their particular rules on adoptions from them. Since there are those that are in opposition to the rules and regulations of the Catholic Church, they should seek services from other agencies that are public or secular and do not have such restrictions.

If the government attempts to enforce a secular mind set on a religious institution, they may (most likely), will find one less rather large group of care takers and adoption arrangers, participating in the overall adoption process. The only people going to be truly affected in a negative way by this stand off will be the children...
 
I believe Church and State should be seperate. To me that would mean a Roman Catholic (or member of any other group that, in this case, found the idea of a gay couple adopting a child offensive) working within the State Adoption Service should not be allowed to discriminate against a gay couple. The flip side to that is a gay couple should not be allowed to go to a privatly run Roman Catholic, adoption Agency to adopt a child. Discrimination is a touchy issue at best and it's easy to discriminate without realising it. I think in this case the Government is discriminating against Catholics with this ruleing.(A case of 'positive discrimination' going too far I think- I'm not a big fan of Roman Catholisism but rather than 'bashing it' or calling on it to change to fit my views- I'm just not going to join. I'm sure on hearing this the Pope will be heart broken and the church will crumble without me... ok, maybe not.)
 
but rules are rules... if we can't discriminate against Catholics, or Muslims, or Jews, then why should it be acceptable to be discriminatory towards gays either..? well done goverment, I say... hurrah! hurrah!
 
BlaznFattyz said:
1. Should Catholics be exempt from the new laws?

2. Are they simply upholding a principle that many other people support?

3. Are the consciences of Christians being trampled over?
Click to expand...

Touch on these a second.....
-------------
1. Should they be exempt? Why, what is so special about them again?

(non catholic) "Hah! f*g!" OH MY YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!$!"£$!

(catholic) "Hah! F*g!" OH MY!! What are you thinking you can't say that!
(catholic) "UHM HELLO!! I'm a catholic?" Oh. Thats alright then....

It is bascially like that... You are saying one type of person can discriminate agaisnt homosexuals.... because?
---------
2. So can I ask to be exempt from allowing equal services to blacks? I am a neo nazi now!! And well loads of people agree with me!! So I want the liscense to be racist......... (See where this is going?)
---------

The christians being trampled over? What about the gays!? You're trampling over them.....
-------------
 
Francis king said:
but rules are rules... if we can't discriminate against Catholics, or Muslims, or Jews, then why should it be acceptable to be discriminatory towards gays either..? well done goverment, I say... hurrah! hurrah!
Click to expand...

Yep, rule are rules and I don't believe it's right to discriminate against some one because of their sexuality. It's my opinion that the Roman Catholic Church is sticking to an outmoded, irrellevant civil law from the Bible. But it's also a part of their belief. It seems to me the ruling that a private Roman Catholic Adoption Agency is now legally FORCED to do something they find unacceptable and are completely against isn't the best way forwards when it comes to promoting tollerance; seems to me that's just going to throw up more barriers...
 
I have seen a lot of debate around this issue on many different boards. There has been a great deal said about the 'rights' of gay people but litle said about what the proccess of adoption has on the adoptee.

I think that a few facts should be thrown into the arena:

Adoptees have almost double the incidence of mental health problems than the community at large.

Many adoptees have identity problems that don't stretch to mental health issues but restrict and limit them.

The suicide rate for attopted male teenagers id higher than the norm.

It looks like to me that we are prepared to use the vunerable in a social experiment which we really have not examined from their point of view.

When I look back on my teenage years I am very glad that I was never adopted by a male homosexual couple.

How do you think you would have felt?
 
bananabrain said:
you take public money, you go by public rules. end of story. as if what goes on in your adoptive parents' bedroom affects how good they are as parents. tish and pish.

b'shalom

bananabrain
Click to expand...

Catholics don't take public funds, but they do provide a majority of the adoptions in England...now how does one rule?
 
The Prime Minister said in a statement that the new rules would not come into force until the end of 2008. Until then there would be a "statutory duty" for religious agencies to refer gay couples to other agencies.

Well done the Prime Minister ... I wonder what he thought we were doing all this time if a gay couple came through the door ... run away? burn them? put our fingers in our ears, close our eyes and chant 'la-la-la' until they go away?

David Cameron ... called for a compromise that would give the Catholic agencies time to find a way of dealing with the regulations

Another way of saying 'let's defer the problem in the hope that it goes away... ' or 'let me defer that question until I can form a focus group to do the research so I can formulate an answer that the majority want to hear...'

— possibly by developing twinning arrangements with other adoption services.
Sorry David, but it's politicians who justify abandoning their principles by appearing to find 'another way' ...

Some questions to consider:
Should Catholics be exempt from the new laws?
Secular institutions cannot legislate on the Constitution of a religion. All they can do is say whether they find that constitution acceptable or not. Furthermore, until Great Britain declares itself a secular society (which it is in actuality) its governance should conform to the principles of Christianity, not the other way round.
So the government has two choices:
1 - Accept the Catholic right to make choices according to its faith, conscience and constitution, or
2 - Outlaw Catholicism.

Are they simply upholding a principle that many other people support?
Immaterial to the argument. They are upholding their own principle.

Are the consciences of Christians being trampled over?
Yes.

Or would an opt out make a mockery of the concept of anti-discrimination laws?
No. Does 'anti-discrimination' mean that all discrimination - the exercise of reason, logic, etc. - be declared illegal? Discrimination legislation sets the boundaries of what is acceptable, and what is not. So it's not a case of 'opting out'.
What about necrophiliacs, can we turn them away? Or paedophiles? Oh, we can, why? Because it offends your principles.

As a complete aside I, for a long time, have been an outspoken critic of the tendency to lump homosexuality and paedophilia into the same camp. Or am I unfairly discriminating?

Is this simply an excuse to perpetuate homophobia?
No. But that's what the tabloid media and lazy thinking will make of it.

Is the Church "blackmailing" the Government, as some gay rights activists have complained?
No. This is a nonsensical argument on every level, except the intended, which is to create fear and mistrust.

Should the Government be offering members of any religion exemptions from any laws?
Not without discussion. It would be nice to think governments legistlate in the light of religious wisdom...

Can religions expect to have their beliefs and lifestyles respected, if they refuse to accept those of other people?
I doubt religions believe that anyway, and specifically Catholics don't, because we believe we will always be despised, for believing in principle.

I might also add that among the Christian denominations, Catholics hold other faith traditions in great respect, and have attracted enormous amounts of criticism for so doing.

What I do not respect is the belief that because I exist, I have a right to anything I want, which is all too often the reason for such arguments.

I might also add that the government is adding to the polarisation of religious position. As I have heard more than one voice say, "Let's see them legislate against Islamic adoption agencies" – in fact both Jewish and Islamic agencies should follow the same practice as us.

PS – has anyone bothered to ask why we choose to make a stand on this issue? Not as far as I see, and those who know me usually begin by telling me how I am wrong, without bothering to ascertain if their argument is in any way relevant to the issue, which invariably it is not.

The 'problem' with religions is that they adhere to a paradigm, and a principle, so tends to take non-negotiable positions on various topics, and this will set them at loggerheads with those who don't have a paradigm (the majority), or hold a different one.

The central issue of the Abrahamic debate it that the principle of the family unit corresponds to a universal paradigm that underwrites the whole created order, and is exemplified, in the human case, by the coming together of man and woman to produce a child – and by the two and the three united in love.

In the case of same sex union the latter can be observed, and respected, but the former, the union of two apparent opposities or contrary impulses cannot. Same sex does not represent, signify or symbolise this profound truth, and for that reason it is not regarded as belonging to the paradigm.

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
Secular institutions cannot legislate on the Constitution of a religion. All they can do is say whether they find that constitution acceptable or not. Furthermore, until Great Britain declares itself a secular society (which it is in actuality) its governance should conform to the principles of Christianity, not the other way round.
So the government has two choices:
1 - Accept the Catholic right to make choices according to its faith, conscience and constitution, or
2 - Outlaw Catholicism.
Click to expand...

OK so fine... We allow the catholics to tell gays they can't adopt...

Now this other group, has a strong set faith, and they want they same thing, except they want it so black people cannot adopt "English" children....

You'd have to let them, How the fudge can you allow catholics or whoever to discriminate? Then not allow others? You couldn't... You would create a snowball effect.

Every little club would be coming up with the list of demands, jumping at the chance to shoot down a "group" they dislike.
 
Every little club would be coming up with the list of demands, jumping at the chance to shoot down a "group" they dislike.

So your argument is that no-one can discriminate on any grounds about anything because it would be tedious to go through and listen to the argument?

Thomas
 
I am sure people with come up with many "reasons" We have strict rules, X says this X says that we have followed this for so long its a tradition.... But especially for christian sect, you are meant to hate sin but not sinners... Following the directions and paths set from the god who is love? Homosexual -people-... They are people, I used to hate them and so on in my younger younger years, but I thought and asked myself how do I benefit from that? OR if not me, who benefits from me being this way? No one... Specially not the people I would pick out. Now allowing a homosexual couple to adopt? Who benefits from that? That homeless parentless child? You BEST believe that child will, the couple? They will too!

They are but humans, and they are loving humans, they want a family.... how can someone be so cold hearted to make a judgement and think they have the power and the freaking right to say, NO! These people do not deserve a child to love.. They do not deserve a family, they deserve nothing, the shouldn't have that chance to love... They deserve to be alone and childless... Well, excuse me but that sounds like a steamy fresh pile of bull... *shruggs*
 
"Well, excuse me but that sounds like a steamy fresh pile of bull... *shruggs*"

OK. But that's no argument, that's sentimentalism.

Thomas
 
...

That clearly wasn't my argument... My argument is how you think you can be god and judge and discriminate against a homosexual couple, what gives you the right? I cleary put that... Tell me where you get the right to decide something like that.
 
There is a great wisdom, albeit often tinged with sadness, in accepting who you are ...

There are heterosexual parents who cannot have children, and moreover couples who accept and commit to a life with each other, knowing that a wish cannot be fulfilled because for some fluke of biology it's never going to happen, and sometimes the greater virtue is in accepting what is ...

Thomas
 
OOOH I seee,

So thats why you have the right to say a child who deserve a GOOD home cannot be adopted by a homosexual couple... Because of a hetrosexual couple that cannot have children... heh. They can adopt... That is their choice to make... Still do not see why that means you can say a child that needs a GOOD home cannot be adopted by a couple that can facilitate this childs needs and wants. Sorry I guess I am not smart enough to see how that logically works and should be law.
 
So thats why you have the right to say a child who deserve a GOOD home cannot be adopted by a homosexual couple... Because of a hetrosexual couple that cannot have children... heh.

No, I was offering an example of that peace that lies in the wisdom:
'to accept the things I cannot change'

They can adopt... That is their choice to make...
Yes it is. But apparently we are not allowed the same freedom of choice.

Still do not see why that means you can say a child that needs a GOOD home cannot be adopted by a couple that can facilitate this childs needs and wants.
Because a Christian definition of 'good' is not limited to material benefit.

Thomas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top