Thoughts on this...

Keylem

A Catholic Adoption Agency in the U.K which is a charity, is being forced to cease adoptions as they refuse to place children with homosexual couples.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ruling-forces-last-catholic-adoption-agency-in-england-and-wales-to-cease-adoptions/

JimiTime

Its not a million miles away that an employer can ask you your views on sex, and refuse you a job based on your answer.

Donatello

JimiTime wrote: »

Its not a million miles away that an employer can ask you your views on sex, and refuse you a job based on your answer.

They've been doing that for decades in Catholic seminaries. So-called 'gatekeepers' - often feminist nuns - would interview prospective priestly candidates. Questions would include the subject of the ordination of women. If a young man gave the 'wrong' answer, i.e. the Church teaching, he would be rejected. Other questions would be on sexual matters, with orthodox candidates rejected based on their being 'rigid' and 'repressed'. It's all documented in this book. The candidates of choice were those who supported the gay sub-culture and the ordination of women.

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

They've been doing that for decades in Catholic seminaries. So-called 'gatekeepers' - often feminist nuns - would interview prospective priestly candidates. Questions would include the subject of the ordination of women. If a young man gave the 'wrong' answer, i.e. the Church teaching, he would be rejected. Other questions would be on sexual matters, with orthodox candidates rejected based on their being 'rigid' and 'repressed'. It's all documented in this book. The candidates of choice were those who supported the gay sub-culture and the ordination of women.

That title sounds promising :rolleyes:
I bet the guy just got rejected and grumpy!

Zombrex

Keylem wrote: »

A Catholic Adoption Agency in the U.K which is a charity, is being forced to cease adoptions as they refuse to place children with homosexual couples.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ruling-forces-last-catholic-adoption-agency-in-england-and-wales-to-cease-adoptions/

All state regulated charities are forced to cease operations if they fail to meet the regulated standards.

I can't help wonder do people only care when it is Christians. If a burger joint was being closed down because it sold rat burgers to people would there be such a reaction.

People have to ask themselves do they agree with the principle of state regulation or not. I mean if someone comes out and says they are a die hard Libertarian who thinks the state should basically do nothing except provide a police force and some basic laws, I would at least respect that their argument is based on principle.

But I suspect most people here are quite happy with state regulation when it suits them, but complain about it when it goes against their own particular beliefs.

How many people here object to the current state regulation that prevents 'abortions on demand' in this country? Good thing, or bad thing?

Keylem

There are many adoption agencies to choose from, Catholic ones among them. What if the birth parent/s who chooses to place their child for adoption, wants them to be raised Catholic, and chooses a Catholic Adoption agency, don't they have a right to have their child placed in a Catholic family? Or should the state deny them that right!

AhSureTisGrand

Keylem wrote: »

What if the birth parent/s who chooses to place their child for adoption, wants them to be raised Catholic, and chooses a Catholic Adoption agency, don't they have a right to have their child placed in a Catholic family?

Do they? Really, I mean is there such a legal right for the birth parents?

Keylem

Keylem wrote: »

There are many adoption agencies to choose from, Catholic ones among them. What if the birth parent/s who chooses to place their child for adoption, wants them to be raised Catholic, and chooses a Catholic Adoption agency, don't they have a right to have their child placed in a Catholic family? Or should the state deny them that right!

If they're that into it then they should find a family through the agency themselves

Keylem

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Do they? Really, I mean is there such a legal right for the birth parents?

And why not??

Question from Mother to Agency

Can I be assured that my child will be brought up in that religion?

If you want your child to be raised as a Catholic, for example, and you choose a Catholic family for your child, then in all likelihood your wishes will be met. It would not be realistic to expect a family to raise your child in a different religion from their own. There can be no guarantees that people might not change their religion at some point.

http://www.adoptionoptions.com/faq.html

Keylem

bluewolf wrote: »

If they're that into it then they should find a family through the agency themselves

Exactly, the whole point of the Catholic Agency is to cater for those who want to place their baby with a Catholic Mother and Father.

What I'm saying is, should the State, interfere with that right by telling the Catholic Agency to include Gays etc, when there are other State Agencies who have no problem with it?

Zombrex

Keylem wrote: »

There are many adoption agencies to choose from, Catholic ones among them. What if the birth parent/s who chooses to place their child for adoption, wants them to be raised Catholic, and chooses a Catholic Adoption agency, don't they have a right to have their child placed in a Catholic family? Or should the state deny them that right!

They never had that right in the first place. The birth mother cannot simply pick anyone to organize her adoption, they have to pick a registered adoption agency who follows adoption guidelines and laws.

You can't just say "I want Bill down the road to arrange my adoption because I trust him to pick suitable parents" Bill down the road must follow the guidelines of the adoption regulator. As must any Catholic Adoption agency. Or they can't arrange adoptions. Simple as.

Keylem

Get a load of this:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pedophilia-a-sexual-orientation-experts-tell-parliament

and this:

http://www.nambla.org/

AhSureTisGrand

Pedophilia a ‘sexual orientation’ experts tell Parliament

Doesn't mean it's acceptable. If they can't do anything about their desire to fiddle with children, then tough titties. They still deserve to go to jail for acting on that desire. I don't see any useful comparison with the victimless crime of gay sex

Zombrex

Keylem wrote: »

Get a load of this:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pedophilia-a-sexual-orientation-experts-tell-parliament

The sooner the prison system wakes up to this fact the better, for too long the policy has just been to throw sex abusers in jail with not treatment or support, and when the unsurprisingly reoffend as soon as the get out express surprise as if just having a really good think about it would change their orientation.

The either need to be locked up forever or the need a support system when they leave with constant monitoring.

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

The sooner the prison system wakes up to this fact the better, for too long the policy has just been to throw sex abusers in jail with not treatment or support, and when the unsurprisingly reoffend as soon as the get out express surprise as if just having a really good think about it would change their orientation.

The either need to be locked up forever or the need a support system when they leave with constant monitoring.

We were just talking about this in our criminal seminar last night. There are only two prisons in the UK that offer treatment for rapists. This is crazy when you consider that rapist have very high recidivism rates. I would imagine it is similar if not worse for child sex abusers (can’t read the links in work so don’t know what they are saying…)

MrP

28064212

Keylem wrote: »

There are many adoption agencies to choose from, Catholic ones among them. What if the birth parent/s who chooses to place their child for adoption, wants them to be raised Catholic, and chooses a Catholic Adoption agency, don't they have a right to have their child placed in a Catholic family? Or should the state deny them that right!

Giving up a child for adoption means you lost any rights to decide how it should be brought up

And this just circles back to the race comparison. If the KKK decided to set up an adoption agency, should they be allowed to only choose white racists as prospective parents?

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

And this just circles back to the race comparison. If the KKK decided to set up an adoption agency, should they be allowed to only choose white racists as prospective parents?

No. Similarly, an adoption agency should not be forced to consider racists as prospective parents. They should be encouraged to find the most ideal nuclear family with a mother and father.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

No. Similarly, an adoption agency should not be forced to consider racists as prospective parents.

Which is what the court ruled in this case, except the ruling applied to sexual orientation discrimination instead of race.

JimiTime wrote: »

They should be encouraged to find the most ideal nuclear family with a mother and father

Aren't the bold parts completely unnecessary? i.e.: "They should be encouraged to find the most ideal family"?

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

Which is what the court ruled in this case, except the ruling applied to sexual orientation discrimination instead of race.

Indeed. The state is obviously saying that it is undesirable to hold the Christian view that the practice of homosexuality is sinful and ruling against those who hold to Christian views on the topic. As much as I disagree with their stance and think its a shame that seemingly decent foster parents are being turned down for fostering; thats the states prerogative. Worrying as it is.

Aren't the bold parts completely unnecessary? i.e.: "They should be encouraged to find the most ideal family"?

No. The most ideal family has a mother and father.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

No. The most ideal family has a mother and father.

On the one hand, we have a drug-addicted, abusive mother and father with numerous convictions. On the other we have a clean gay couple, one of whom has a good job more than capable of providing for the family, the other is a stay-at-home parent who will take care of the child. Which of the following statements should the adoption agency use to decide who is a better choice of parents:

28064212 wrote: »

They should be encouraged to find the most ideal family

JimiTime wrote: »

They should be encouraged to find the most ideal nuclear family with a mother and father

?

Zombrex

28064212 wrote: »

On the one hand, we have a drug-addicted, abusive mother and father with numerous convictions. On the other we have a clean gay couple, one of whom has a good job more than capable of providing for the family, the other is a stay-at-home parent who will take care of the child. Which of the following statements should the adoption agency use to decide who is a better choice of parents:

Well in fairness you wouldn't have that, those people would never be considered for adoption.

What it would come down to is a choice between gay adoption or the continuos shuffle between foster parents and care homes.

What you have is under-supply with new borns and older supply with toddlers and up. Basically most people who want to adopt want a new born baby, much less want to adopt a child that is older.

I imagine that includes gay people as well, but I know that the choice between a gay couple prepared to take on a child vs State care the option should be obvious, even if it isn't the theoretical ideal.

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

On the one hand, we have a drug-addicted, abusive mother and father with numerous convictions. On the other we have a clean gay couple, one of whom has a good job more than capable of providing for the family, the other is a stay-at-home parent who will take care of the child. Which of the following statements should the adoption agency use to decide who is a better choice of parents:


?

ROFL. Bloody hell, what adoption agencies do you know??:D

And just to clear, if the above was in fact the choice available(which it is not), then the homosexual couple described above would obviously be a better choice than a couple of drugged up abusers. Also IF the choice is foster care and state institutions or the homosexual couple you describe, I would again say the homosexual couple if no suitable home is found in a certain amount of time. As wicknight said though, its likely that homosexual couples are similar to straight couples in that they'll want newborns, of which there is more demand than supply. In such a scenario, a homosexual couple should not be considered.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

ROFL. Bloody hell, what adoption agencies do you know??:D

And just to clear, if the above was in fact the choice available, then the gay couple described above would obviously be a better choice than a couple of drugged up abusers. Also IF the choice is foster care and state institutions or the gay couple you describe, I would again say the gay couple.

That's exactly my point. So why on earth would the guideline be "They should be encouraged to find the most ideal nuclear family with a mother and father" instead of "They should be encouraged to find the most ideal family"?

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

That's exactly my point. So why on earth would the guideline be "They should be encouraged to find the most ideal nuclear family with a mother and father" instead of "They should be encouraged to find the most ideal family"?

Because that defines what you are looking for. A mother and a father to adopt the child.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

Because that defines what you are looking for. A mother and a father to adopt the child.

But they're not. They're looking (or should be) for the best place to put a child. Sometimes that's with a mother and father. Sometimes it's with two fathers. Sometimes it's with a single parent. The number and orientation of the parent(s) is one of a whole set of selection criteria.

You might as well say their guideline should be "They should be encouraged to find the most ideal family that don't move around a lot" because that's what they're looking for, but in reality, that criteria can be outweighed by others

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

But they're not. They're looking (or should be) for the best place to put a child. Sometimes that's with a mother and father.

I wont follow you into the rhetorical land you are creating, where adoption choices are between drug addicted abusive parents, or a homosexual couple. The language stands, adoption first and foremost should be about finding a mother and father for a child. Everything else stops short of the childs best interests and should very much considered exceptions.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

adoption first and foremost should be about finding a mother and father for a child.

In a hypothetical choice between placing a child with a drug addicted abusive heterosexual couple, or a stable loving homosexual couple, that language means you place it with the former

Adoption first and foremost should be about finding the best place for a child. Sometimes that means placing it somewhere that it won't have a mother (or father). "Best" is subject to a wide range of criteria, one of which is the gender of the parent(s).

You're talking about an absolute ideal, in which case the statement should be: They should find the most ideal nuclear family with a mother and father, a clean house, no drug addicts, no abusers, no irresponsible relatives, round-the-clock supervision, a garden, nearby school, a friendly dog.... and about a thousand other things

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

In a hypothetical choice between placing a child with a drug addicted abusive heterosexual couple, or a stable loving homosexual couple, that language means you place it with the former

Eh, no. Creating the extreme and completely unreal scenario to make that point renders it null.

Adoption first and foremost should be about finding the best place for a child.

Which at the very least should involve both a father and a mother.

Sometimes that means placing it somewhere that it won't have a mother (or father). "Best" is subject to a wide range of criteria, one of which is the gender of the parent(s).

A mother and father is the foundation, not simply one of the criteria.

You're talking about an absolute ideal, in which case the statement should be: They should find the most ideal nuclear family with a mother and father, a clean house, no drug addicts, no abusers, no irresponsible relatives, round-the-clock supervision, a garden, nearby school, a friendly dog.... and about a thousand other things

Nope, its foundational, not simply 'part of the criteria'. Anything beyond that is very much exceptional, so any language should be explicit in its seeking of a mother and father.

The Brigadier

28064212 wrote: »

In a hypothetical choice between placing a child with a drug addicted abusive heterosexual couple, or a stable loving homosexual couple, that language means you place it with the former

You are ignoring the third option - not placing the child as neither option is suitable.

twinQuins

JimiTime wrote: »

Eh, no. Creating the extreme and completely unreal scenario to make that point renders it null.

Because it exposes how untenable your position is?

Which at the very least should involve both a father and a mother.

Why?