1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Catholic adoption society wins exemption from using gay parents

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by ccdd, Mar 17, 2010.

  1. ccdd

    ccdd Guest

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/17/catholic-adoption-gay-parents

     
  2. Just Adam

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,435
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    My AV room
    congratulations everyone another failure for human rights
     
  3. ccdd

    ccdd Guest

    I know what you mean - what is the point of equality legislation if people are able to opt out of it?

    I don't understand why it's religion that gets special rights. Why not also matters of conscience which are not backed up by a God? If, for instance, hypothetically speaking, I felt it wrong and it was against my conscience to let Catholics adopt, would my case be listened to in the High Court? No, it wouldn't - because I'm not backed up by a religion and a God. I just find it weird.

    The thing is, the state doesn't interfere in religious matters: the state does not tell the Catholic Church who it can ordain (it doesn't have to obey gender equality legislation for instance) and doesn't force the Church to marry divorced people (who can legally marry) or whatever. In the adminstration of the sacraments of the Church the state doesn't intervene. But adoption is a state matter. It is performed by the state. When performing a function of the state the Church should obey the state. Furthermore, they are not being forced to do this - no one is forcing them to work in adoption.

    These are just my opinions anyway.
     
  4. Just Adam

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,435
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    My AV room
    i just think religion causes far more harm than it solves, believing in something other than your self for justification of your actions and what you think and do with your life seems insane to me
     
  5. NickT

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kentucky
    "We look forward to producing evidence to the Charity Commission to support the position that we have consistently taken through this process: that without being able to use this exemption children without families would be seriously disadvantaged."

    I'm sorry...what?! How the BLEEP does that make ANY sense?!
     
  6. Swamp56

    Swamp56 Guest

    It doesn't; that's the whole point.
     
  7. ccdd

    ccdd Guest

    What it means, to my mind, is this:

    "We're going to blackmail you, and if we don't get to discriminate, then children are going to suffer. We would rather they suffered by not having families than that we were forced not to discriminate".

    What boggles my mind is how they've put it all in terms of children will suffer if they close because they often deal with older or disabled children. No, these children won't suffer and will still find families - because the people who want to adopt the children they deal with will adopt them, just through different agencies. The Catholic agency is just that - a mediator between two parties. If someone wants to adopt the children, then they will - the Catholic agency is not essential for this. No one, in fact, is hurt if they close. Others will fill in the gaps. They are not as essential to the well-being of these children as they like to suppose.

    What worries me is that some of these already vulnerable children will be placed in families that may (depending upon whether or not the adoptive parents agree with the agency's stance or not) be homophobic. What about the gay kids who are adopted? They will grow up knowing that the agency that placed them wouldn't have let them adopt themselves..
     
  8. Jonah 4

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Indiana
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    I'm not sure how I feel about this but then again I'm not British. If this was in America I could see why this would be the right decision.
     
  9. Beachboi92

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    1
    Here is the simple basis of it, in order to gain public funding or be involved in government like these organizations they have to abide by law. To state that a gay couple is not as capable as a straight couple is plainly discrimination. The very end of this argument is that the service they provide is not one rooted in religion it is in public service, it is about what is better for the children (not based on the churches opinion). If the church cannot prove that a gay couple is unsuitable to be parents (which they can't) then they cannot discriminate against them versus a straight couple. Also why are the kids not being asked what they want and if they would rather stay in foster care or have a loving family regardless of the parents sexual orientation.

    So im just gonna say this again cause it infuriates me, this is a public service rooted in government and they must abide by government law. This is a service to the kids and community and the kids themselves should be able to decide if they want to live in a gay family. I don't understand how religious beliefs can be aloud to have bearing upon a public service rooted in government, non-religous adoption agencies have to abide by gov't law, and these religious groups have every right to religious freedom as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other (aka gay parents right to adopt and have a family).

    ----------

    ^ even in America this would not be the right decision only a decision that could be forced based on churches twisting the truth and attempting to justify bigotry. In DC churches that refused to let gay couples adopted where removed from tax exempt status because the base of the matter is that it is rooted in government and you must obey government laws.
     
  10. Revan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Messages:
    7,850
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Canada
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Another failure -_- all I can say is "Sigh"
     
  11. ccdd

    ccdd Guest

    The way I see it, the state should not interfere in matters of the church, but when the church is carrying out a matter of the state, it should obey the state.

    Let me explain. I agree with the separation of church and state (which we don't actually have in the UK but anyway). To my mind, this means that the state lets the church do what it wants when it is in the religious sphere - not when it is in the public sphere. Therefore, in the case of the Catholic Church, the church is quite rightly exempted from equal opportunities legislation and can discriminate against women when it comes to ordaining priests. Because ordaining priests is a religious matter, the church gets an exemption from that law. (This is just one example).

    However, in this case the Catholic Church is taking upon itself a function of the state. This is not a specifically religious matter - that is, adoption is a matter of the state. Now, if a religious person or a religious group gets an exemption from the law even when they are outside of the religious sphere then in fact they are held account to no law but their own law. So to me it's a matter not of the state telling churches what they can do or state vs church but this: is this a matter of church or state? I think it's a matter of state, even though performed by religious individuals.

    Furthermore, we all (I think) agree that there are some laws that the church cannot break. Let's take this to the extreme. If, for instance, my religion said that I had to kill people, and I formed a religious group for this person, the fact that it was a religious belief would not get me an exemption from the law that says you cannot kill people. It would not matter how many other people of my religion agreed with me, how many ancient religious texts I produced to support me, how many centuries of traditions I had behind me or how many religious leaders spoke up on my behalf: I cannot break the law just because my religion says so.

    Consequently, we can see that whilst the state does try and protect religion, there are times when the state says "No, you cannot do this - it is wrong". Therefore, if my religion wanted me to practice female genital mutilation, I cannot do this; if my religion wanted me to stone adulterous women, the state would not let me do this; if my religion wanted me to keep slaves the state would not allow me to do this; and if my religion made it necessary for me to sacrifice children to the sun god by cutting out their heart whilst they are still alive, the state would not let me do this.

    However, here, religion says that you must discriminate against gay people and state says yes - you can do this. So it's not actually a matter of whether the state should be able to force religions to obey the law - they already do this - but a case of where the dividing line is.

    The difference in these cases is that the state has decided that these things (eg murder, subjugation of women, slavery etc) are so heinous and bad that even if your religion says you must do them, the state will not allow it. However, we are still at the stage where the state and society doesn't see discrimination against gay couples in such bad a light - and therefore it's still allowed in the name of religion even in the secular sphere such as adoption .

    If the Catholic Church wants to discriminate against gay people in the administration of the sacraments such as not allowing them communion or not letting them become priests, that is their choice - but when they are performing a secular function (which they don't HAVE to perform in any case), they should obey the state.

    So to me, this whole story says more about how secular society views discrimination against gay people than how the Catholic Church does. ie. the average man on the street still thinks it's an OK thing to do if your religion says you should.
     
    #11 ccdd, Mar 20, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2010