It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Catholic church and gay adoption.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by timeless test
How many female Catholic priests have you ever seen?


That's a matter of theology and the Catholic Church's right to run itself as it sees fit accordint to it's theology.


Oh, well that's OK then but what happens when some wacky "Abrahamist" sect of Christians arrive and decide that they should sacrifice their first born child to satisfy God's demands of them? That is their theology and presumably we should allow that too should we?

It's not as outlandish as it sounds. A couple of years ago the dismembered torso of a child was pulled out of the Thames and the general belief is that he was the victim of a ritual sacrifice. A religious or pseudo religious practice? "It's a matter of theology" again but is it acceptable? Of course it isn't.



is it against the law of the land for a church to practice what it preaches and to run itself as it sees fit? Is it against the law of the land for a church organization to help while staying within the borders of it's belief system?

Damned right it's against the law. What in the name of heaven gives a religious organisation the idea that their "belief system" should exempt them from law?

Arrogant hypocritical tossers the lot of them.




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Lets keep it civil guys, please.

IMO we spent 1000 years - and more - trying to make sure this was a secular society and that none were above the law of the land.

Not even 'religious laws'.

If the Churches (of whatever 'flavour') cannot comply with the law in this then they should be wound down and out of it
(within a timescale and gradually considering it's not exactly a 'business' one can wind down overnight).

Presumably then some sort of secular civic entity could take the place of the religious (with any of the ex-staff staying on if they chose to with the new rules).

IMO it shouldn't be 'rocket science' to come out of this with those wanting to help still doing so and the care maintained whilst abiding with the law of the land.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
when some wacky "Abrahamist"


Actually, I think Abraham was totally nutz .. but that's a topic for another thread.


What in the name of heaven gives a religious organisation the idea that their "belief system" should exempt them from law?


Churches answer to human law and they also answer to a higher law, God's law as they have interpreted it. God's law is OVER and above human law.


Arrogant hypocritical tossers the lot of them.


I have no idea what a 'tosser' is .. but as far as 'arrogant and hypocritical' ... nope. Irrational anti-catholicism in the name of 'tolerance' is arrogant and hypocritical as well as ignorant (not pointing fingers at anyone) ... but a church that is selective on who it helps or doesn't help based on their beliefs is totally within their rights.

Fact is that a religious organization can help whoever it wants. It can be selective. It is their right to do with their time and money as they see fit. If they want to help some people and not others ... it's their right to do so. If they do not want to help homosexuals adopt because it is against the foundations of their religion, then they have a right not to help them.

No one can force another human being to help someone.

The Catholic Church isn't the only adoption group on the planet. There are many others. They don't hold a monopoly. If people don't like the Catholic way of doing things, then they can go elsewhere with their $$$. Vote with their $$.

We were turned away from the Catholic adoption agency (as well as the Lutheran one) because we were too old. (35 was the cut off). We went through a different non-profit (non-church affiliated) adoption agency and it was just fine. The planet is full of different agencies .. pick one. To continue to slam the Catholics because they are practicing their faith, which they have a right to do, is just anti-Catholicism. Nothiing more.

[edit on 1/24/2007 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Churches answer to human law and they also answer to a higher law, God's law as they have interpreted it. God's law is OVER and above human law.


That's your view, yes, but in a truly secular society where church and state are separate and people are allowed to be free then that simply cannot apply. If that statement was applied to a nation's laws then it basically alienates anyone who isn't a Catholic... Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, Sikhs and so forth. And that's a very dangerous thing to do... is that not also potentially suppressing freedom of speech and freedom of religion? What if a certain Church begins taking the entire Bible literally and begins killing people for working on Sundays or for eating shellfish? Does Biblical law take precedent, or does 'human' law? You see the problem of suggesting Churches are ultimately guided by a 'higher' law. The Bible explicitly condones murder in certain circumstances (despite the whole "Thou shall not kill" thing), and this contradicts 'human' law that all murder is against the law.

I find your view interesting, though, despite strongly disagreeing with it. You'll have to forgive me for generalising but it doesn't seem like a view that originated from the UK (and yes, I know you're from the US
). Having visited the States a few times and keeping an eye on news in the US, I know that religion does play a much bigger part in the lives of Americans than it does in the lives of Britons (there are pockets, however, where it still does play a relatively substantial part... Northern Ireland for instance).

You may find, FlyersFan, that some members from the UK take a pretty strong view in opposition to your statement and you might not understand why. Is it not odd, you may think, that the UK is so secular and yet it has the Church of England, the head of which is also the head of state of the United Kingdom? Well, yes... the British system has some wonderful quirks in it. Religion generally has been on a downward trend for a long time (both Catholic and Protestant - the numbers of Catholics have generally been small ever since Henry VIII started the Church of England anyway), with numbers attending Church dwindling and the percentage of Muslims, Sikhs and so on being pretty small. France is starting to head in the same way... it's just the way of things, I suppose.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Ste2652]

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Ste2652]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   
A little extra detail that has so far been missing from this debate -


In this case, the key issue is that the Catholic Adoption Agency is a body in receipt of public money that provides a public service, taking children from local authority care and placing them with adoptive parents of any or no religion; this activity is not intrinsic to its religious belief or practice.
Therefore the state is entitled to insist that the activity is in accordance with the laws of the land.


www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
So, because Catholics are a minority in England, they shouldn't have their relgious beliefs tolerated?

But because Protestants are the majority everyone has to tolerate them?

How 'tolerant' of you. (*sarcasim intended)


Im not talking religion over religion, what I meant was that Catholics should be tolerant of non-catholics, just as all religions should be tolerant of non-religious people, not the other way round.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Churches answer to human law and they also answer to a higher law, God's law as they have interpreted it. God's law is OVER and above human law.


What a stupid thing to say. Why is gods law over the law of the country? You're starting to sound like the radical muslim clerics that say their followers should follow the law of Islam, not the law of the country, they should marry their children off at age 11 and beat the women that don't wear a hijab.

Why should an old-fashioned, out-dated, prejudiced and cherry-picked law be followed over the law of the land?


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Fact is that a religious organization can help whoever it wants. It can be selective. It is their right to do with their time and money as they see fit. If they want to help some people and not others ... it's their right to do so. If they do not want to help homosexuals adopt because it is against the foundations of their religion, then they have a right not to help them.


You seem to think the Catholic church can do whatever it likes which is jsut a ridiculous proposition. Imagine what a mess this world would be if they did!

Do you support every decision the Catholic church make in the name of doctrine and theology?

Do you support Papal Bull, Ad Exstirpanda, which allows the torture of heritics to elicit a confession, and then also allows the burning alive of heritics (ie. anyone who wasn't a Catholic).

Do you support Papal Bull, Cum Nimis Absurdum, which segregates the jews from the Christians, doesn't allow them to own land or practice medicine and forces them to wear yellow hats and scarfs. All this because "Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal slavery".

That sounds pretty fascist to me. Not everything the Catholic church does in the name of theology and doctrine is acceptible.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652
If that statement was applied to a nation's laws then it basically alienates anyone who isn't a Catholic... Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, Sikhs and so forth.


If anyone who isn't a Catholic is alienated from adopting from a Catholic agency, then so what? Like I said, if people are soooooooooo upset by this then don't use the Catholic agencies and stop giving $$$ on Sundays during Mass. Vote with the $$$.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Churches answer to human law and they also answer to a higher law, God's law ...

What a stupid thing to say.


you crack me up. Considering that you are just a teenager, I'm sure you have never studied theology ... ANYONE's theology ... have you? Churches run on both human law and God's law, but God's law is the higher law. Example - If human law allows the murder of innocent people but God's law doesn't, that means that the Christian is obligated NOT to kill innocent people even though human law allows it. In this case God's law is that active homosexuals should not be raising children even though human law allows it. Therefore the Church, by it's very nature, is obligated to follow God's law and not help homosexuals to adopt.


Why should an old-fashioned, out-dated, prejudiced and cherry-picked law be followed over the law of the land?


A bit anti-Catholic eh?
The Church can help, or not help, anyone it darn well pleases.


You seem to think the Catholic church can do whatever it likes which is jsut a ridiculous proposition.


Is that what you think? My advice to you is to stop trying to think .. you will just give yourself a headache. Oh .. and in the future don't PROJECT onto fellow ATS members a position like that. You will just end up being wrong (like now) and you'll embarrass yourself.


That sounds pretty fascist to me.


That's because you don't understand what facism really is. Following the doctrine of your faith and not helping homosexuals to adopt is not facism. It's following your faith and it harms no one. There are plenty of other adoption agencies that help single people and/or homosexuals to adopt. There are plenty of private adoptions as well. Taking over the world is facism .. not being choosy as to whom you decide to assist in adoption.

Next time try to pull up Papal Bulls that aren't hundreds of years old. That was lame.


*for the record (not that it matters) - in addition to being (mostly) Catholic and an adoptive parent I also have no problem with homosexuals adopting children.

edited for spelling



[edit on 1/25/2007 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Considering that you are just a teenager, I'm sure you have never studied theology ... ANYONE's theology ... have you?


You can really tell when someones argument is running out of steam when they have to resort to personal attacks. My age has nothing to do with this argument so don't bring it up. I could equally argue that your age has left you jaded and indoctrinated into the Catholic churchs falacies and prejudice.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Churches run on both human law and God's law, but God's law is the higher law. Example - If human law allows the murder of innocent people but God's law doesn't, that means that the Christian is obligated NOT to kill innocent people even though human law allows it. In this case God's law is that active homosexuals should not be raising children even though human law allows it. Therefore the Church, by it's very nature, is obligated to follow God's law and not help homosexuals to adopt.


Try and remember that "Gods law" as you call it doesn't exist. Catholic law is just as human as the law laid down by Britain. It is the interpretation of documents millennia old by humans, who seem to cherry-pick their points particularly well. God never came down to earth and told Christians what to do (well ignoring the whole Moses thing where he told you not to eat pigs!).


Originally posted by FlyersFan
The Church can help, or not help, anyone it darn well pleases.

Yeah, behind closed doors where it doesn't harm anyone. But its a different story when they are taking money fro the government and then defying the laws laid down for its use. (Read sminkeypinkeys quote). Biting the hand that feeds a bit I think!


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Next time try to pull up Papal Bulls that aren't hundreds of years old. That was lame.


I was pointing out the disgusting acts the pope has done in the name of theology and doctrine in the past. You never answered the question. Would you support those papal bulls if they were released today under the cloak of Catholic belief? Would you support such a fascist and segregationist body who wish to torture and kill? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, i just wish you had it now so you could see what the church is doing today in the name of "the lord".



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
You can really tell when someones argument is running out of steam when they have to resort to personal attacks.


That's right. YOU said my post was stupid. That was a personal attack.
Pointing out your lack of theological experience isn't an attack, it's stating that you don't understand an aspect of the discussion. The aspect that just about ALL CHURCHES subscribe to 'higher law' notions.


My age has nothing to do with this argument so don't bring it up.


Actually, your age and therefore your lack of experience understanding religions and their laws does have to do with discussing your stand. You don't understand WHY the Church says what it does. It points to a basic lack of understanding/experience on your part.


I could equally argue that your age has left you jaded and indoctrinated into the Catholic churchs falacies and prejudice.


No you couldn't. Oh, I am jaded. But as far as being 'indoctrinated into falacies and prejudice' ... you would be wrong. You haven't bothered to read what I said .. that I don't care if homosexuals adopt or not .. if you had bothered to read that you'd know your statement was false. You have no idea who I am or what I believe or don't believe.


Try and remember that "Gods law" as you call it doesn't exist.

Try and remember that "God's Law' does indeed exist for the church in question as well as just about every religion on the planet. You are failing to understand that no matter if it exists or not in reality ... it exists for those religions and they HAVE to follow that law above all others. That is the point. They HAVE to answer to THAT law above all others.


Catholic law is just as human as the law laid down by Britain.

That's opinion. (and wrong - but that's for another discussion)


God never came down to earth and told Christians what to do .

That's opinion. (and wrong - but that's for another discussion)


behind closed doors where it doesn't harm anyone.

They aren't harming anyone.


But its a different story when they are taking money fro the government and then defying the laws laid down for its use.


The government knows the Catholic belief system. If it doesn't like that the Catholics won't be helping homosexuals to adopt then it's up to the government to cut off funds ... or it's up to the people to not adopt through them if they are upset about it. I already discussed the 'vote with $$' aspect.


I was pointing out the disgusting acts the pope has done in the name of theology and doctrine in the past.


Obviously.
You pull up things from hundreds upon hundreds of years ago that have no bearing on this discussion.


You never answered the question.

Because it was unworthy of discussion - totally off topic.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Where to start? That post was so riddled with hypocrisy its difficult to know! First you say:

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Actually, your age and therefore your lack of experience understanding religions and their laws does have to do with discussing your stand. You don't understand WHY the Church says what it does.

But then you say:

Originally posted by FlyersFan
You have no idea who I am or what I believe or don't believe.


YOU don't know who I am either. YOU dont know what theology I have studied or what religion I was brought up in or what sort of schooling I had or what my religious background is or what I have done to make MY OWN MIND UP about my religious beliefs all from my AGE! How dare you make sweeping assumptions about me but vilify me when I make one about you as an example!


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Obviously.
You pull up things from hundreds upon hundreds of years ago that have no bearing on this discussion.

You never answered the question.

Because it was unworthy of discussion - totally off topic.

I think it is on topic. In Catholic circles it is "in fashion" to be prejudiced about homosexuals just as it was at one time "in fashion" to be prejudiced against Jews, but for theological and doctrinal reasons. Where is the difference in your eyes and why do you support the discrimination of one minority over another?

You don't seem to have made a rebuttal to any of my on-topic points so I don't see how this discussion can continue.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Before people go too far off on a tangent could folks just focus on the facts here?


the Catholic Adoption Agency is a body in receipt of public money that provides a public service, taking children from local authority care and placing them with adoptive parents of any or no religion; this activity is not intrinsic to its religious belief or practice.

Therefore the state is entitled to insist that the activity is in accordance with the laws of the land.


www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Firstly, my apologies for a certain amount of incivility and dicey language earlier -

*writes one hundred times "I will not post on PTS after a bad day and too much Scotch"*

Onwards...



Originally posted by FlyersFan
Churches answer to human law and they also answer to a higher law, God's law as they have interpreted it. God's law is OVER and above human law.


That's an acceptable theological position to take but one which will have some problematic consequences in the temporal realm. In this case the Church will have to decide whether their adherence to God's law makes a civil penalty from the law of the land an acceptable sacrifice. They have two options, they can either continue to operate as they are and face the consequences of legal penalty or they can stop what they are doing and be happy that they have not had to break from their theological position. They may not like the second option but life is never easy.

What they cannot do is to set themselves up as being above the law, that way lies anarchy and I don't imagine that God would be too impressed if his Church were to act in a such an irresponsible and anti-social way.

They can answer to God's law in his kingdom but whilst they enjoy the comforts of ours they must answer to our law first.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Fact is that a religious organization can help whoever it wants. It can be selective. It is their right to do with their time and money as they see fit

Nope, we're just going to have to agree to disagree about this. If the law says thou shalt not discriminate then your status as a religious body does not exempt you from it. Should they be allowed to turn away black people from homeless shelters too? and if not please explain the difference.

But Sminkey has the smoking gun (and I promised myself I would never use that expressionon this site), they take public money. Not only that, but they are, of course, a registered charity and, therefore, take more public money, (that's my money and your money), to carry out their good works. So let's be clear about this if they want to apply their God's law to their activities to the exclusion of the law of the land they can do it with their money, NOT mine. Otherwise we may as well give a bunch of kids a Government grant to vandalise bus shelters.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
How dare you



YOU displayed ignorance by not knowing the basic theology of 'higher law'. I'd 'dare' expose that any day.


any of my on-topic points

You haven't made any.


Originally posted by gfad
In Catholic circles it is "in fashion" to be prejudiced about homosexuals


Actually it isn't. Very few Catholics tow-the-line of old-school. If you were so worldly and really educated in matters of theology (as you seem to want us to think) and sociology then you would know that.

These days its 'in fashion' to be pro-homosexual, pro-birth-control, and pro-women-ordination. Your statement is totally false.


Originally posted by timeless test
or they can stop what they are doing and be happy that they have not had to break from their theological position.


THIRD AND BEST OPTION - They continue as they are doing, helping families adopt children, and if the government doesn't like that they don't help homosexuals then the government can stop giving them money. That way the children are still adopted out; families are helped; the church members don't commit 'sins' and aren't forced to work against their faith; and the government can withold $$ if they so desire which would have the Catholic adoptions funded by private donation.


I don't imagine that God would be too impressed if his Church were to act in a such an irresponsible and anti-social way.


God doesn't care about 'anti-social' .. at least not as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. According to the Church, God cares about SIN. (I'm just telling you the theology.)


They can answer to God's law in his kingdom but whilst they enjoy the comforts of ours they must answer to our law first.


From the Christian perspective - God made the earth and all of us therefore His law comes first, human law comes second.


If the law says thou shalt not discriminate then your status as a religious body does not exempt you from it.


Yes it does. Freedom of Religion. No matter what we think of the religion or it's theology... they are allowed to practice their religion as they deem fit. They aren't hurting anyone. Gays should know better than to go to a Catholic organization for adoptions. There are PLENTY of other places to go. It's just common sense for them to do so.

BUT TIMELESS TEST ... if you like we can leave it at that and just agree to disagree with it.


Should they be allowed to turn away black people from homeless shelters too? and if not please explain the difference.


If Muslims don't want to take care of Jews in their soup kitchens, then it's their right not to have to. If Protestants don't want to provide health care to Catholic street-people, then it's their right not to. If Catholics don't want to help homosexuals to adopt, then that's their right not to.

No one should be forced to help someone else.

Also - common sense should be involved - You don't go to a Catholic Hospital for birth control or abortions. You don't go to a Fundamentalist (or Catholic) adoption agency to adopt if you are gay.


they take public money.


If it's offered then of course they will take it. If the government doesn't like what they are doing then they can withhold funds. I already made mention of this. Also, if people are upset with it they can use a different adoption agency. It's not the only one on the planet.



[edit on 1/25/2007 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Oh heck, I'm going to start getting uncivil again in a moment, I just know it.


Freedom of Religion. No matter what we think of the religion or it's theology... they are allowed to practice their religion as they deem fit.


I know you're serious about that comment but please think through what it means. I don't want to sidetrack this discussion but certain radical Muslim theologians hold that it is acceptable to kill infidels, (that's you and me), by the bus load if necessary. Are you seriously telling me that's OK? Never mind the odd bit of mass murder as long as it's in the name of their God? This is the thought process which brought us the Spanish Inquisition for heavens sake.

The whole point is that the law says they ARE hurting someone, they are denying the rights of homosexuals to be treated like any other person and surely that is what a caring and loving God would want too?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
Oh heck, I'm going to start getting uncivil again in a moment, I just know it.


Why? This is just a conversation. I could easily switch sides and argue your side just as well. But what fun would that be?



The whole point is that the law says they ARE hurting someone,


They are being selective in who they help. You can't force people to help others. You can't force people to go against their religion and help people do something that the religion says is wrong.


they are denying the rights of homosexuals to be treated like any other person


From the Catholic Church perspective - active homosexuals are NOT like 'any other person'. From the Catholic Church perspective - they are engaged in a lifestyle that is counter to 'higher law'.

*NOTE that I said from the Church perspective and not mine.


and surely that is what a caring and loving God would want too?


A caring and loving God also hates sin - which the Catholic Church believes active homosexuality is.

Timeless Test - You and I fully believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. The Catholic Church does not. Did you see my THIRD OPTION that I posted? Would you be against the Catholic Church members providing adoptions while practicing their faith WITHOUT government money?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   


The whole point is that the law says they ARE hurting someone, they are denying the rights of homosexuals to be treated like any other person and surely that is what a caring and loving God would want too?


Many so called 'normal' people are denied the right to have children by adoption agencies, any number of factors-some rather ridiculous IMO- can ruin the chances of people being able to adopt. The vetting process is itself a form of discrimination.

The fact is Catholic agencies make up a very small part of the adoption procedure and there are plenty of other options open to gay people wanting to adopt. It's not like they're having a major impact on the gay communities rights and to be honest I find it highly unlikely that most gay couples first port of call would be a Catholic agency anyway. There's a certain element of intransigence v common sense, all of it in order to make political/theological points.

I'll say this again, the most important aspect in all this, the childs welfare seems to have become a secondary consideration. Whatever the rights and wrongs of gay adoption it's still at this stage a social experiment by any other name and therefore the child is at the forefront of any fallout from this.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
They are being selective in who they help. You can't force people to help others. You can't force people to go against their religion and help people do something that the religion says is wrong.


Agreed on all counts, so they have the option to stop their activities in this field if they break the law. The point is that this is not a private matter, these agencies have put their services into the public arena and they must, therefore, abide by the laws that cover such activities.

As an employer I could refuse to employ women on the grounds that there are plenty of other companies out there who will employ them so why would they bother applying to me for a job when they know I am a misoganist? Is that an acceptable attitude or would it perhaps somehow become an acceptable attitude if I were to register my company as a religion?


Did you see my THIRD OPTION that I posted? Would you be against the Catholic Church members providing adoptions while practicing their faith WITHOUT government money?

Yes, I saw your third option but you clearly did not read that I had already discounted this suggestion.


Originally posted by timeless test
What they cannot do is to set themselves up as being above the law, that way lies anarchy



Originally posted by Flyers Fan
Timeless Test - You and I fully believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt.

Do we? I don't recall ever saying that, I simply said that the Catholic church is not above the law of the land.


Now, Did YOU see my question which you have not answered yet?

Originally posted by timeless test
certain radical Muslim theologians hold that it is acceptable to kill infidels, (that's you and me), by the bus load if necessary. Are you seriously telling me that's OK? Never mind the odd bit of mass murder as long as it's in the name of their God?

Does adherence to theology allow you to commit any crime?




[edit on 25-1-2007 by timeless test]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
To chip in once more, I think it's important to realise that the government isn't the one being dogmatic here... all it's saying is that homosexual couples should be considered when a child is put up for adoption. It's not saying they must give children to gay couples, only that all adoption groups should consider them as potential foster parents (whereas the Church is saying that it absolutely will not give children to homosexuals because of their sexual orientation, even if they meet all the other criteria). The actual decision should rest on what's best for the child, not the religious belief of the adoption agency or sexual orientation of the parent. I think anyone, regardless of gender or sexual orientation or whatever, can be a loving and caring parent and that's what these kids need more than anything else - to feel loved and wanted. If the prospective foster parents meet the necessary requirements and the child is happy having two mothers or two fathers then I fail to see the problem. And that's the central issue here - the children, and it must remain so. Instead it seems to have been turned into the Church vs. the Government.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Before people go too far off on a tangent could folks just focus on the facts here?


the Catholic Adoption Agency is a body in receipt of public money that provides a public service, taking children from local authority care and placing them with adoptive parents of any or no religion; this activity is not intrinsic to its religious belief or practice.

Therefore the state is entitled to insist that the activity is in accordance with the laws of the land.


www.guardian.co.uk...



Yes, why is everyone ignoring sminkeypinkey's post that says this adoption agency is receiving public funds?

I think this blows the whole right for the church to discriminate out of the water. If I were from the UK I would be outraged to find that my tax money was being used to keep children in the system instead of finding them homes with willing and able members of the gay community.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join