Half of U.K. Catholic Adoption Centers Forced to Serve Gay Couples

Cheisa »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

This post got far off the track from the topic, but it kind of scares me the way some posters view women, their "proper" roles and sin. It seems to smack of a subservience and a voluntary limiting of a woman's potential, supposedly based on biblical teaching. I think that's ridiculous. Women should be allowed to fufill their God-given potential, whatever that may be.

Let's face it folks, women lead men all the time. Who sets the standards for taking care of the house, setting the agenda for chores and meals, deciding on furnishings and decor? How many women handle the household finances and do all those "manly" jobs around the house when the man's at work? How many women decide whether the family will go out for dinner, what her husband will wear and whether relatives will visit? It's kind of a fallacy for men to assume they're in charge.

And what's wrong with a woman doing carpentry or fixing appliances, training the dog or doing yard work? How could their contributions to the family and it's home possibly be sinful even they tread into areas that are traditionally male? I think it's more male insecurity than biblical teaching that cause some to try to restrict women.

I'd rather have a full partner who can work side by side with me, whatever the task, than someone who thinks their role is to leave that stuff for the man. I'd rather see her take initiative and tackle new things, even "man" things, so she can continue to grow and fully tap her God given potential. It makes her a better, more confident, capable person and a more full partner in the relationship. We can each still have our male or female itineraries, but that doesn't mean that "never the twain shall meet." Men will change diapers and women will build fences, sometimes. That doesn't diminish the role of the other parent in the least and is a healthy way for both to feel involved in all the shared aspects of responsibility for home and family. And it can be accomplished in a way where neither neglects their responsibilities if they work together as a family team.

Goodness knows, being competent in as many areas of life as your God given skills permit is more a form of praise for the talents you've been given than it remotely approaches the sinful.

Mike22685 »

Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Me too Prophet, me too...

Prophet »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

David is the only one who had it right when he had sex with Bathseeba. He could have said "But I love her! So it must be okay!"
He had a heart of God and knew it was a sin and repented. I wish more Christians were like that.

Bryan90 »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"This death can and will take on many forms; death in your relationships, physical death, mental health death, death to your intellectual abilities, financal death, moral death (depravity), death in your relationship with God. The list goes on. "

Death in your relationships. I am actually having very healthy relationships with my parents and friends. As for love, I am only 18, and have yet to settle down. I guess I'd have to be patient on that one.

"physical death" Everybody dies. Death is not a punishment from God.... In fact, there was a period in my life where I could not bring myself together due to the conflict between the religious views I used to have and my personal views, and hence attempted suicide, and was miraculously saved twice. So yeah.. apparently God did not want me to die.

"mental health death" That you might be right. In trying to understand God's way, I perpetually question Him and ask for his guidance in my wisdom. And it is really a lot more mentally strenuous than just taking the bible for its face value and end up following but not understanding. And such following, to me is dangerous because since you do not understand why you follow, you could be mislead.

"death to your intellectual abilities." Nobody is stupid. God created everybody with their unique abilities. There is no such thing as a death to our God-given intellect.

"financal death" First of all, do you see a correlation between homosexuality and poverty? Perhaps then, homosexuality is not a sin? But anyway, poverty is again, not a punishment by God. And sometimse it might even be a blessing. "It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than a camel to enter the eye of a needle."

moral death. I would not call myself "all good", because obviously I err from time to time. The very same people who preach this "morality" end up instigating crusades, ethnic cleansing, and so much more. To me, to be moral means to be able to reconcile with my conscience and integrity. And by persecuting homosexuals or women, I would not find a peace of mind and would indeed end up morally depraved.

"death in your relationship with God" God doesn't only love the christians my friend. EVERYBODY has a relationship with God. It's not as exclusive as you think.

Bryan90 »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"A female who wants to take on the role that God ordained for the man to do is a female whose heart is not right with God."

What makes you think that God has a predefined role for males and females? The bible?! Again you must be picking your own verses here. Does it mean that since there were no biblical verses of females receiving education, no females now are entitled to education? Does it mean that in the bible, females only help their husbands in their husband's traits, females cannot have their own career today?

"Those kind of relationships didn't come without a price"
So what makes you think that your relationship is the right one? In the bible, polygamous relationships and incestuous relationships were not consistently condemend as well. But now you freely rebuke them. Aren't you picking verses again?

star2 »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Bryan90

The world is black and white. God decides what is good and aceptable and what is not. He is the creator and that is His right.

God tells us in His Word what is good and acceptable to Him and what is not. If you don't want to model your life in accordance to it then you are in sin and so is any nation who wants to thumb their nose in God's Word and do those things that God says is unacceptable or sinful.

The soul that sinneth shall surely die (Ex 18:20). Go against what God says is the right way and you will experience as a person, a family unit, or as a nation nothing but death over time. This death can and will take on many forms; death in your relationships, physical death, mental health death, death to your intellectual abilities, financal death, moral death (depravity), death in your relationship with God. The list goes on.

Prophet »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Mike speaks so freely of this "love" that is supposedly from God.
There is a way that seem right to man, but the end thereof is destruction.

Mike, don't you realize that Solomon probably used the same argument? "But I love my wives, so why would it be wrong? It must be from God if I love them." We see how he turned out.

star2 »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:47 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Bryan90

>>>What about polygamous relationships in the past? Concubines, harems, etc?<<<

Those kind of relationships didn't come without a price (negative consequences).

star2 »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Bryan90

>>>So I guess it's also a perversion for females to want to take the role of protecting and providing? It's a perversion for females to want to earn the bread and buttter for the family? It's a perversion for females to want to be pastors; for females to want to lead (men)? <<<

A female who wants to take on the role that God ordained for the man to do is a female whose heart is not right with God.

Bryan90 »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:39 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Now that we are on the topic of research, let me open up some discussion.

My humble opinion is that we cannot generally research "life". Why?

Good Parenting. What is good parenting? Parenting that provides children with material needs? or with emotional needs? or with both? Parenting that makes their children successful?

Successful children. What is successful children? Good grades? Good christian? Good PERSON?

Good. What is good? Christianity? Or rather empathy and compassion?

So how can one say that same sex parents are bad parents, when one cannot even define what an ideal child would be? But I guess according to Star, an ideal child would be one that upholds the "stereotypical gender roles". And all else is perverted. Is that true?

star2 »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:22 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I did not accuse you of being biased Mike22685, though, I do admit I believe that you are.

Yes_I_am_a_Jew said that my source was biased. I asked if he were not also biased. He admited that he was and explained why.

The findings of the Christian Medical Association are similar to the findings of Sociologist Patricia Morgan who has written the largest review of the research ever published in Europe on the topic. Her book "Children as trophies?", considered 144 academic papers including 50 on same-sex parenting.

Mike22685 »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:58 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Star, you accuse me of being biased, then you quote only Christian medical journals which do not require their authors to be medically accredited to publish. I would be very interested to see how the studies were performed and where they got their numbers from.

star2 »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:47 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Mike22685

>>>Star, gay parents can provide excellent role models.<<<

Research is not on your side Mike. I know you want to adopt children and you may want to give them a loving home as best as you and your partner are able too but your gender confusion and homosexual behavior can and will affect whatever children are given into your care in a negative way.

>>>By your statement, should we take children away from single mothers?<<<

No, of course not. However, a son being raised by a single mother without an active male influence has problems. A lady in my church who was a divorcee had a son. The ex-husband played no role in the boy's life. One day she noticed that her son was acting out behavior that was like hers. He was copying her female mannerisms. She realized that he needed a male influence so she had her father spend a lot of time with him so he would model his behavior after a male instead of hers.

Her experience is not uncommon.

Bryan90 »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:38 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Star,

So I guess it's also a perversion for females to want to take the role of protecting and providing? It's a perversion for females to want to earn the bread and buttter for the family? It's a perversion for females to not want to be treated as weak? It's a perversion for females to want to be pastors; for females to want to lead?

"Incest".

So, now we are at the topic of incestuous relationships. Did Adam's family not commit incest? So which part of the bible tells you that consentuous incestuous relationships are wrong? This has nothign to do with homoesxuality, just peoples' preference in love.

"Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."

Oh yes, the fabric of society has always been the family unit consisting of one father, one mother and a few children? What about polygamous relationships in the past? Concubines, harems, etc? We change! Society change! And I hope it's always for the better!

The world is not all black and white. God makes the world diverse so that it could be beautiful. All of us created unique with different kind of personalities. Some women want to be provided for, some want to provide. Some want to be engineers, some want to be artists, some want to be scientists. Some would like to have a relationship with the opposite sex, some would like it with the same sex. If you look at God's creation, it's actually very very beautiful; just like the promised land.

star2 »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Mike22685

>>> One does not simply turn from straight to gay, they just come out. <<<

Not so Mike, No so.

I will grant you that a few poeple are born gay. There has been evidence to support the notion that this is so because the male fetus was exposed to a large amount of estrogen while developing in his mother's womb. Also, there is evidence that suggests that many male babies who are given a large amount of soy products , natural source of estrogen, tend to have an underdeveloped sexual organ and they tend to have breasts more like a female than a male when they enter pubetry.

However, that is not the case for many children who become lesbian or gay (homosexual). Many have been sexually abused when they were young. Sometimes the kind of music they listen to have resulted in them having homosexual thoughts and behaviors. Sometimes just experimenting with homosexual behavior out of curiosity or peer pressure resulted in them becoming a slave to that behavior and over time accepting themselves as a homosexual. For others it may have been a result of wanting to be the opposite sex and making an effort to be such because they felt unlove, or unaccepted by a parent that valued the sex opposite theirs.

The dynamics of why a person in many cases choose to be a homosexual is very complex. There is no simple explanation.

You may have been born a homosexual like you believe but you do not have to remain that way. God can heal you. He can fix and make right what went wrong while you were developing in your mother's womb if that is really the case. If it is not, He can still fix what went wrong that resulted in you thinking that you were gay and acting out on that belief.

star2 »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Findings of the Christian Medical Association

Excerpts taken from:

Homosexual Adoption & Children
http://www.cmda.org/AM/TemplateRedirect.cfm?template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=9126

There is reliable research demonstrating the detrimental effects that homosexual parenting has on children. The results are obvious: the gay lifestyle when merged with parenting results in increased domestic violence, mental disorders, substance abuse and low self-esteem.

Sexual Confusion. Children of lesbian and gay parents are more likely to become homosexual in their adult life, at a rate four times higher than children of heterosexual parents, according to a study in Developmental Psychology... Children (especially girls) raised by lesbians appear to depart from traditional gender-based norms, while children raised by heterosexual mothers appear to conform to them.

Incest. A study in Adolescence found that 29 percent of adult children of homosexual parents were victims of sexual molestation by their parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents. Therefore, the chances that a child of a homosexual will be molested increases by a factor of 50.

Political Agenda. The goal behind gaining a legal foothold in gay marriage and adoption is not merely so that gay couples can be recognized by the government and consequently, society. Widely celebrated in the homosexual realm is the goal of changing the traditional view of marital commitment to openly include infidelity 'arrangements'. Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lamba Legal Defense and Education Fund (LAMBDA), said, 'Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so...Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society.'

Mother/Father Roles. Innately, anatomically and psychologically, man and woman are pre-destined to fully complement each other. The mother's role in the family is unlike the father's-each contributes a unique quality to the marital relationship and to the parent-child relationship. History has repeatedly proven that a child who grows up in loving, nurturing, traditional family fares better emotionally, academically, financially and behaviorally.

star2 »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

The below excerpts taken from:

Same-sex parenting is bad for kids
http://www.christian.org.uk/pressreleases/2002/february_06_2002.htm

As the Government seems set to allow a free vote on gay adoption, a new book highlights the overwhelming evidence that same-sex parenting is bad for children.

Sociologist Patricia Morgan has written the largest review of the research ever published in Europe. The book, Children as trophies?, considers 144 academic papers including 50 on same-sex parenting.

"Patricia Morgan's book also shows that parenting by married couples produces better outcomes for children than parenting in cohabiting households...."

Key points from Children as trophies?

There is not a single published comparative study of the effects of homosexual foster care or adoption. Advocates of gay adoption can only cite studies on homosexual parenting. (page 127)

Despite repeated assertions to the contrary, many studies indicate significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual parenting outcomes for children, particularly the likelihood that children of homosexuals may become involved in homosexual behaviour themselves. (page 67)

In fact some researchers in favour of gay adoption even admit that such children are more likely to be homosexual. (pages 77, 78, 85ff)

Gender confusion seems to be rife with daughters of lesbian mothers. (page 78)

Evidence from around the world shows that the married family is the most successful child rearing environment. (Britain, USA, The Netherlands, New Zealand - see pages 87-90)

Pro-gay sociologists argue that gay adoption should go ahead despite the lack of evidence in support. (page 132)

Mike22685 »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:25 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

I am here because I refuse to have such ignorance remain unchecked Delight. Star, gay parents can provide excellent role models. By your statement, should we take children away from single mothers? I was raised by straight parents in a completely straight world and somehow I know how to have a healthy relationship with my partner, so I'm sure my kids will turn out just fine. The child you speak of sounds like they were probably struggling with their sexual orientation but by living with a gay man realized it was a non issue. What a blessing for them to not have the terror of coming out in a largely homophobic world! One does not simply turn from straight to gay, they just come out. Just because they are not out does not mean they are straight.

star2 »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:53 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Bryan90

God created the male with the need and desire to provide for and to protect his wife and He created the female with the desire to be provided for and to be protected.

I am female. I for one enjoy having a man open the car door for me, seat me at the table when we go out to eat, carry heavy items for me, kill a poisonous snake for me, fix my vehicle for me, and etc. even though most of these things I can do for myself. I do not find that offensive when they do those things for me and it makes me feel more like a woman. I enjoy being treated like a lady.

I have also found out that men think differently than women and many times make better decisions as to what to do in a given situation than a woman.

Am I weak? Yes, I am. There is nothing wrong with being weak.

I am not stupid. The guys that I have associated with are about equal in intelligence to me. We all are college graduates, with one in the same field, another in a similar field of study, and yet another in an entirely different field of study. I was a co-worker with one of them. I was just as successful professionally if not more in a sense than my co-worker.

However, I have found that these males think differently than me a woman. They often make better decisions than me because they don't view situations with their heart and make decisions based on that like I do as a woman.

star2 »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:57 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Bryan90

Homosexuals are poor role models for children. It is a sin against a child to raise them to know only how to act with another person of the same sex in ways that God calls an abomination. And that abomination includes more than just having gay sex. It also includes non-sexual intimacy like holding hands, passionate kissing, and etc.. What kind of role model do two men or two women provide for a child in term of what a heterosexual marriage should look like? All they see is that their two daddies or their two mommies act together like their friend's mommy and daddy do. How can that adopted child raised by two homosexuals know how to have a healthly relationship with the opposite sex and to have a healtly heterosexual marriage if and when he/she decides to get married? It is a sin against a child not to teach them their proper role in their relationships with people of the opposite sex and within a heterosexual marraige. It is also a sin to do something that will result in them adopting a sexual identity that is contary to the sexual identity they were born with. Their sex chromosomes determine their sexual identity. If a child has XX (XY) choromosomes then the child is female (male).


There was a couple in my church who were foster parents. They had a 12 yr old heterosexual boy that they were foster parents to by the name of Joe. A single homosexual man adopted that boy. My friend said that when she saw him he was as gay as gay could be. About 6 yrs or so later that young man, now called Alex, called my friend to just talk. She said he was as gay as gay could be just like the man who adopted him. That boy was heterosexual before he went to live with that gay man and now he is homosexual. His life with that gay man turned him into a homosexual. That is a sin against that child. He was born heterosexual not homosexual. He was robbed of his sexual identity by that homosexual. That child deserved to be raised by a hetrosexual man who could model for him what God intended for a man to be. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

Bryan90 »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

"Gay parents are incapable of providing the proper gender role model for an adoptive child."

What kind of gender role model? The kind where females are supposed to be weak and dominated by their husbands and where their husbands are chauvinistic males who think that they are created superior to their female counterparts?

Bryan90 »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:59 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"If all heterosexuals loved and took care of the children they created, then gay adoption wouldn't even BE an issue."

Ouch! I don't think my parents could have raised me better! That's very 1. untrue. 2. judgmental. 3. Not just mean to me because I don't really care, but mean to my parents.

star2 »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:43 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

It is a sin to place a child into a gay family. Gay parents are incapable of providing the proper gender role model for an adoptive child.

DelightntheLord »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"that's just my humble opinion'

There is never anything humble about your opinion, Mike. Especially when using the word 'ignorant' in your first sentence. You just like to argue and cause a fuss because it makes you feel good about yourself. Why else would you post here?

Mike22685 »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Wow, your ignorance just popped up to say hello. First and foremost, I'd like to think a small minority is capable of that much, but that's just illogical. The fact of the matter is, the transgender community has pushed for rights and many have backed them. In terms of multiple marriages (I'm assuming you're referring to people having multiple divorces then remarrying) that has been in practice for waaaay longer than gays have been out and strong as a community. I think being ignorant is way more detrimental to society than being gay, but that's just my humble opinion.

rolln4him »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

mike-
I know you think you are a Christian, so I wouldn't expect you to think that you being gay is detrimental to all society. The perversion has led to many other perversion like transgenders using the restrooms or locker-rooms of their choice, gay adoptions, multiple marriages and the list goes on.

Mike22685 »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Rolln, do you have studies that prove otherwise? Do you have documentation that the studies supporting gay adoption were done by biased researchers, or is that something you accuse because it is in line with your beliefs?

I can feel love just like any other person, I do not have disordered love, and I most certainly will make a wonderful father, just as I am a wonderful teacher. It truly hurts me that so many of you refuse to think of this with any emotion and slam all gays as if you can fit us neatly into a giant stereotype. Open your hearts and learn a little, literally for the love of God!

pvlman »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

What evidence is there that children adopted by same sex couple would be harmed in anyway. The only ones giving the kids a bad time may be the kids of "loving" Christians. I imagine many are fearful if same sex couples adopted kids, they may discover homosexuals are born that way not made that way. Anyway too much of the article reads like an unsubstantiated email forward to give it much credit at this time.

star2 »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

chicago24, my dear man, if gays could pro-create with their partners then they would not need/want to adopt.

chicago24 »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

If all heterosexuals loved and took care of the children they created, then gay adoption wouldn't even BE an issue.

Glass houses, folks!

rolln4him »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:48 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

msn -

You're right. They only have a made-up sort of love that fits their lifestyle.

msnchris70 »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:38 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

Gays only offer a "Disordered" view of love, so they can never be parents of any children.

Great Britain should be called "Lame" Britain.

rolln4him »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

pastortim -

Wonderful post and great points.

rolln4him »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:09 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

mike-

The ramifications of gay adoption can not manifest itself in such a short period of time. So any supposed study is simply gay propaganda. They're getting good at finding allies to produce all kinds of bogus material.

Fortunately, many states still don't allow for gay adoption, but I have to admit that the culture is falling to the side of the Devil. At one point we had high societal standards, but now we have clowns for judges (waiting to see what California will do with the Prop 8) and perversion pervading the land.

Pastortim »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:49 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

Unfortunately, the emotionalism of this issue is clouding the real issue. It really isn't a question of GLT couples adopting children (or the motivations behind those adoptions or desires), the real issue is what extent will a human-based, secular government have control over the religious denominations in its realm. The question is what "right" does a government have to dictate the moral positions of a relgious denomination? The issue of GLT marriage, adoption, special rights, etc. is a moral issue and here in the United States, we have seen the very real tragedy of a federal government attempting to dictate moral positions. The UK is in even worse shape than the US in that regard. Our US Constitution clearly states government WILL NOT infringe upon the moral positions of our nation's churches and religions, but as long as Christian, in particular, stand idly by and do not take a stance against the intrusions of government into the moral positions of churches, the "blob" of secular government will continue to engulf religion in the US until we become exactly like the UK and Europe: morally and religiously bankrupt. The UK has become an empty shell of religion and faith with church attendance down into the 20-30% range. Again, the real issue is how firmly will religions/faith-based organizations stand by their moral convictions against the oppressive and intrusive push of the secular government.

Mike22685 »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:15 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

God didn't make me able to bear children, but that says absolutely nothing about being able to raise them.

Rolln, tell yourself what you need, but the reason gay people are adopting is because they want to give children a loving home who desperately need one, and there are hundreds of thousands of kids in the US alone who do. No, I'm not kidding about the studies, look it up.

rolln4him »

Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:42 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

DP -

Great point about the fact of being made gay (as they say they are) then it makes great sense to say they are meant not to be parents.

Another side note: Generally, society straying from God's natural design is a society heading towards chaos. Clearly, the courts in our nation are in a state of anything goes, don't offend (unless you are a Christian), don't mention God, mentality. In other words: Near chaos/anarchy.

rolln4him »

Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:08 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

mike-

Studies? You're kidding right? How can you have a study of something that has only been happening for - at the most - 20 years. The only reason gay people are adopting is simply to try and bring legitimate legality to their lifestyle. Unfortunately for them, there can never be acceptance by society of gay lifestyle. They live fake lives always trying to imitate heterosexual love where there is actual blood line heritage.

Daniel Paul »

Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

"I know plenty of qualified gay parents."

To me, having the biological parts is one of the qualifications of being a parent. If good made you gay then he didn't make you able to bear children.

Daniel Paul »

Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"Catholic Charities of Boston chose to give up their state funding."

Good for them! The Bible says "God shall supply all your needs" not the state. Now all we need to do is get Planned Parenthood to show the same integrety by giving up the Christian's tax dollars.

Mike22685 »

Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Rolln, I know plenty of qualified gay parents. Just because your beliefs disagree doesn't mean we as a society disregard studies showing there is no adverse effect on gay couples adopting children, and the children desperately need to be adopted.

rolln4him »

Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:51 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Phat;

There is no such thing as a qualified gay couple. Catholic teaching is that an active homosexual is a perverted person. Thus, they'd be stamped: NOT QUALIFIED!

rolln4him »

Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Again, I will say this again and again. If any gay individual ever tells you that the gay agenda has no affect on the church, they're lying to you as big as the Devil. Of course, the gay agenda affects us. We have got to do something quick to put a stop to gay perversions otherwise the church will go underground.

Prophet »

Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I wonder what the UK would do if so many adoption agencies shut down? That would put more burden on them. But then again, "If you want it done the way you want it done, do it yourself." Right?

mysticalguy188 »

Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:59 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Hey PhatDajuan, I researched how you said that Catholic Charities in Boston was funded by the state and found of no such thing supporting or opposing your statement. Any links?

I did find, however, that the Catholic Charities of Boston was founded in 1903 so I highly doubt that the State funded it back then due to different times and less government spending. In my opinion, if the agency has been running for more than 100 years its own way, why change?


Also, as of the matter in the UK...are you guys aware that Catholic schools in the UK are not allowed to preach Catholic doctrine? LOL.

I think that, in this case, the Catholic Church should have the right of way. If gay couples have a problem, I HIGHLY doubt that they won't be able to find a state or other denomination adoption agency.


Last but not least, there were 11 Catholic adoption agencies in the UK. Here is a link of all the adoption agencies of the UK. Note that the UK is a small country, unlike the US. It's easy for a Brit to go to an alternative agency.

http://www.baaf.org.uk/w02-0472/cgi-bin/agency_db.pl?method=showlinks&noframes=true

PS - that link I gave you. I wanted to count them all, but I stopped at 50. There are well over 100 adoption agencies in the country. I highly doubt that it will be hard for a gay couple to leave a Catholic agency and go to another one.

The Master Has Spoken. ;)

Mike22685 »

Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Amen to that. I think if there is a single parent who wants to adopt and can prove their parenting skills for that child, then the child should be placed with them. The model of mother-father is not always possible, and when it comes to children in the situation of foster care, waiting for that perfect American Dream family could translate to wasting valuable years of development for the child.

ThomasOfDoubt »

Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:36 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

I don't think an adoption agency should be allowed to discriminate using any criteria other than those which are directly related to the ability to be a good parent.

It's not just an issue of funding, in my opinion Phat. The agencies have a responsibility primarily to the children they are trying to place. To rule out potential parents for any reason other than inability to parent is wrong and hurts the children.

Mike22685 »

Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:02 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 5

I agree Phat. I think this comes down to an issue of children needing a good home, and when scientific studies have proven that children from gay parents are just as well off as children from heterosexual families, discrimination means they're only holding the children from a possibly loving home for even longer.

PhatDajuan »

Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:34 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Absent from this report is any indication what public funding or tax breaks, if any, these British adoption services are receiving. Until such information is provided, one cannot make a good judgment about this case.

In the meantime, I'm reminded of Catholic Charities of Boston, which operated an adoption agency. Frankly, I wouldn't care if Catholic Charities of Boston discriminated against Gay couples, or Jewish couples, or Atheist couples, or whomever, as long as they weren't benefiting from tax dollars or given tax breaks. After all, would you want YOUR tax dollars going to an agency that discriminated against evangelical Christians? I think not.

The problem is, Catholic Charities of Boston was being funded by the State of Massachusetts to the tune of $1 million per year. And when they abruptly decided to stop placing children with qualified Gay couples, the state gave them a choice: Stop discriminating or give up your funding. Catholic Charities of Boston chose to give up their state funding. Fine by me.