Catholics, Homosexuals and Adoption

Originally Posted by Bobslob

It is qualitatively different. A black couple is identical to a white couple, or a couple of any ethnicity, or a couple with mixed ethnicity, except accidentally. A same-sex couple is qualitatively (substantially) different than a different-sex couple-- i.e., as regards both partners being of the same gender vs. of opposite genders.

I'd agree, if there was any proof of the difference being a problem. It can't be a lack of a father (or mother) figure that has the orphanage wary, since I'm sure that they'd allow single parents to adopt. (They might not be their favourites, but they'd allow it.)

So the only conclusion I can come to is that they feel that there is something about gay parents that must harm children.

Actually, say 200 years ago the same arguments would be made against coloured parents, they would be considered qualitatively different from a white couple.

Unless the orphanages have any kind of evidence that having gay parents is harmful they have no case.

This comes down, not to discrimination, but to freedom of conscience.

That claim can be made about any discrimination. However, even if it was freedom of conscience, what gives the orphanages the right to simply say: "You cannot have a family because we don't like gays!"?

Originally Posted by GDwarf

I'd agree, if there was any proof of the difference being a problem. It can't be a lack of a father (or mother) figure that has the orphanage wary, since I'm sure that they'd allow single parents to adopt. (They might not be their favourites, but they'd allow it.)

That they are substantially different has nothing to do with what flows from them, i.e., differences in raising. It has to do with what they are. A mahogany table and an oak table are both tables. They are accidentally different inasmuch as they are constructed from different woods. That is the type of difference in a marriage of mixed ethnicity.

So the only conclusion I can come to is that they feel that there is something about gay parents that must harm children.

Yes. At the very least, it is giving children a bad example morally. The Catholic Church views parents as the people with the primary responsibility to educate their children. The manner in which we raise children has a large effect on their moral compass, to say the least.

Actually, say 200 years ago the same arguments would be made against coloured parents, they would be considered qualitatively different from a white couple.

Even if this were true (and it is unsubstantiated), it is a red herring. I am sure even Hitler enjoyed relaxing and having a beer, but wouldn't on such grounds condemn others.

Unless the orphanages have any kind of evidence that having gay parents is harmful they have no case.

What you are saying, essentially, is we don't know whether having gay parents is harmful because we haven't done it, so, instead, we should experiment on our children until we find out.

That claim can be made about any discrimination. However, even if it was freedom of conscience, what gives the orphanages the right to simply say: "You cannot have a family because we don't like gays!"?

Whoever said, "we don't like gays?"

Nor did we deny they could have a family. (The picture which entered my head was the Catholic agency finding a person with same-sex attraction and ripping away their parents and siblings and relatives and imprisioning them in isolation.)

Firstly, this is not a practical issue we are debating. Catholic agencies do make up 4% so gays are pretty free to adopt. however, if 4% of bars did not allow blacks, would we dismiss the issue as blacks could go elsewhere?

This isn't the case of denying people something because of who they are, but rather, because of what they have freely chosen to have done, that is, to associate in a certain way by forming a legal union with someone of the same sex. This is not like discriminating against blacks.

Can we stop affording religious beliefs more significance than regular beliefs? Just because these people claim that they have a god who influences their beliefs does not mean they are more important.

You should realize that it is an abhorrent thing to force a person to do something against their conscience.

Catholics are not having freedom of conscience taken away. they are merely not allowed to practice their beliefs if they wish to be an adoption agency.

And so, little by little, are being relegated to second class. When Catholics can't be doctors because they force us to perform abortions, and when Catholics can't be pharmicists because they force us to fill birth control prescriptions, and Catholics can't run adoption agencies because they force us to give children to gay couples-- at what point will you simply sever us from society or outlaw our religion? Sure, we have a theoretical, "freedom of conscience," but we just can't go into half a dozen occupations because we aren't allowed to follow our consciences.

No-one is forcing Catholics to start adoption agencies and act contrary to their beliefs. Having some freedom of action taken away is not an intrinsically bad thing. After all i am not allowed to beat the hell out of people even if i believe it to be right. The law restricts freedom of action, deal with it.

The law rightly restricts freedom. I am no libertarian, by any means. But if you think that beating and killing someone is on par with choosing with your own discretion who is or isn't fit to adopt children, then you have a skewed view. The law prohibits us from directly harming another. Directly perpetrating violence against someone (something positive) is far different in kind from not allowing a gay couple to adopt (something negative).

-Rob

Originally Posted by Dark Wyrm

i'm going to go agianst the grain here and side on the side of the Catholics. Personaly, I think that a child requires a Mother and a Father, not 2 of one type. The mother to care for, and teach values too, the father to support, love, and teach.

As for the love thing, well, there is more to parenting then love. There needs to be two contrasting sides(Male and Female) to consider all the facts and make judgements so. For example, remember when you were in trouble as a kid and your mother was already to let you get away from it, but your father was the one who inacted the puishment, because he knew that was what lesson you needed to learn at the Time?

But thats just my opinion. I calls them as i sees them.

Remember that red rider BB gun you got as a child? You remember that right? Everyone got one. Everyone. Because everyone had the exact same experiences growing up. No one is different.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see two reasons one would make such an outlandish and possibly offensive statement:

1.) you believe everyone experiences life exactly the way you did

or

2.) You are utterly and completely sexist, and believe that all men and women should and do assume those roles

Originally Posted by Bobslob

It is qualitatively different. A black couple is identical to a white couple, or a couple of any ethnicity, or a couple with mixed ethnicity, except accidentally. A same-sex couple is qualitatively (substantially) different than a different-sex couple-- i.e., as regards both partners being of the same gender vs. of opposite genders.

red is the same as blue, for they are both colors, but one is vastly different than two because they are different numbers.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

This isn't the case of denying people something because of who they are, but rather, because of what they have freely chosen to have done, that is, to associate in a certain way by forming a legal union with someone of the same sex. This is not like discriminating against blacks.

People's sexuality is not chosen. Gay people dont just think "hey, i fancy being attracted to people of the same sex now". Attraction (both to the body and the personality) is not something we choose. Like if i eat an apple and find the taste repulsive, i cannot decide to like the taste, as i automatically do or do not like it.

You should realize that it is an abhorrent thing to force a person to do something against their conscience.


And so, little by little, are being relegated to second class. When Catholics can't be doctors because they force us to perform abortions, and when Catholics can't be pharmicists because they force us to fill birth control prescriptions, and Catholics can't run adoption agencies because they force us to give children to gay couples-- at what point will you simply sever us from society or outlaw our religion? Sure, we have a theoretical, "freedom of conscience," but we just can't go into half a dozen occupations because we aren't allowed to follow our consciences.

If a job requires performing an action that you believe to be morraly wrong then you simply cannot do that job. If i want to be a rancher, which lets say requires me to shoot predatory animals, an action i believe is morally wrong, i cannot do that job. Just because a lot of jobs require actions believed to be sinful by the Catholic church does not mean we can give them exceptions so they can do their preferred job. if i was a white supremacist, who believed that providing black people with goods and services was morally wrong then i wouldnt be able to do a lot of jobs without acting immorally. This doesnt mean that there should be exceptions made so that white supremacists can do their preferred job.

The law rightly restricts freedom. I am no libertarian, by any means. But if you think that beating and killing someone is on par with choosing with your own discretion who is or isn't fit to adopt children, then you have a skewed view. The law prohibits us from directly harming another. Directly perpetrating violence against someone (something positive) is far different in kind from not allowing a gay couple to adopt (something negative).

There can be no proof that beating someone up is more harmful to them than not allowing them to have a child.

Originally Posted by HylianShroom

People's sexuality is not chosen. Gay people dont just think "hey, i fancy being attracted to people of the same sex now". Attraction (both to the body and the personality) is not something we choose. Like if i eat an apple and find the taste repulsive, i cannot decide to like the taste, as i automatically do or do not like it.

I never said that their sexuality was chosen. Read carefully. Their free association was chosen-- by which I mean their free choice to choose to associate with someone of the same sex as a couple. Their attraction isn't chosen, but their lifestyle is.

If a job requires performing an action that you believe to be morraly wrong then you simply cannot do that job. If i want to be a rancher, which lets say requires me to shoot predatory animals, an action i believe is morally wrong, i cannot do that job.

I'm not sure I'd grant your analogy. Instead, being a rancher... well, to be honest, I'm not entirely clear what a rancher does. Serves me right, I'm a suburbanite. But killing predatory animals does not consitute the essential part of what being a rancher it is-- rather, it is a property that flows from what they are.

Instead, let me move it to something which I might get a bit better. Let's take a shepherd. A shepherd's job is to... well... shepherd his sheep. Now, anyone who believed that shepherding sheep was immoral, obviously they could not be a shepherd. The necessity of defending the sheep against wolves is derivative flowing properly from what it is to be a shepherd, inasmuch as it derives from his mission to guard and protect the sheep.

But the problem is this, being someone who runs or works at an adoption center does not necessarily entail giving children to same-sex couples. Instead, it necessarily entails giving children to opposite-sex couples. What would be perverse would be if someone refused to give children to opposite-sex couples in principle, because that is what adoption essentially consists of. The protecting the sheep from wolves part is more nebulous-- indeed, it can fit either of our analogies. But for mine, I am sure that it is the shepherd's duty to protect sheep from harm. That is what the Catholic adoption agency is attempting to do by not giving children to same-sex couples. Indeed, it would be perverse if they didn't try to protect them from harm, as they perceived it.

The analogy leads to a standstill.

Just because a lot of jobs require actions believed to be sinful by the Catholic church does not mean we can give them exceptions so they can do their preferred job. if i was a white supremacist, who believed that providing black people with goods and services was morally wrong then i wouldnt be able to do a lot of jobs without acting immorally. This doesnt mean that there should be exceptions made so that white supremacists can do their preferred job.

The difference, as I've stated before, is that this is not the same as discrmination based on race.

There can be no proof that beating someone up is more harmful to them than not allowing them to have a child.

Denying a same-sex couple that they can have a child, then, in your mind, cannot be seen as being less heinous than beating someone up to the point that they are in a coma?

Also, I don't recall not allowing them to have a child. Same-sex couples are biologically capable of doing so, just not with each other. This is hardly the fault of Catholic adoption agencies.

-Rob

Originally Posted by HylianShroom

Gay people dont just think "hey, i fancy being attracted to people of the same sex now".

It's called "coming out of the closet." And yes, it happens.

As a point of interest, I invite you to research the Blue Flower technique. Buddhist monks will concentrate on the image of a blue flower and acheive sexual climax through that thought and that thought alone. Sexual behavior and arousal is as much a product of socialization as the next thing.

Originally Posted by 2 Dope

While I believe that discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation is wrong, these are private institutions, and have the right to deny a person the right to adopt from them if they choose to. It may seem wrong to most, but these are privately run, not run by the government, so they have the right to deny someone the ability to adopt.

Catholic adoption agencies are not privately owned in England - the Catholic Church receives a lot of Government funding to run these organizations.

I have an additional question.

Would everyone agree that, normatively, children at adoption agencies should be given to opposite-sex couples? (Note: normatively is the key word.)

-Rob

I would personally put opposite-sex couples at the top of the order of priority, with singles and same-sex couples being lesser priority-wise (but approximately equivalent). Those who are part of father-mother pairs would take priority over those who are not part of father-mother pairs.

Should priority for two individuals who are damaged in such a way that it is difficult to reproduce--one being a heterosexual, and one being a homosexual--be any different? Does it not make sense for the heterosexual to have priority with respect to treatment that may increase the chances that he/she will be able to reproduce?

Child-rearing is highly rooted in our biology, and we should acknowledge as much, and stick to typical child-rearing as much as possible.

To a degree, I think it is unethical to remove any child, animal or human, from its natural setting--in this case, from its father and mother (pondering it now, I think our system of animal domestication is not exempt from this).

And obviously a male is more biologically and socially suited to act as a father and a female more biologically and socially suited to act as a mother, so placing a child who has been put up for adoption in a setting that does not have both of these is far from ideal, especially when there are plenty of opposite-sex couples looking to adopt.

There is no proof that same-sex couples are less capable of bringing up children. Also, what is the ideal character that we are trying to produce in children that same-sex couples cannot achieve? Surely if the chilld is loved and not harmed by the parents then it does not matter how the child turns out in the end. Why do we want to program children to believe the same things as us? none of us have any proof of what is morally right so there is no point in trying to make children beleive in the same morals as us. what would be best for the child is the parents teaching and allowing them to be free-thinking.

Originally Posted by LexLionHart

It's called "coming out of the closet." And yes, it happens.

Actually, no, it's not. The term "Coming out of the closet" is a term used for a gay person who hid the fact that they were gay for a prolonged period of time, and finally stopped denying the fact to the general public. That is not the same as one day just randomely deciding, "Hey, now I don't like you anymore, I like this guy."

I have an additional question.

Would everyone agree that, normatively, children at adoption agencies should be given to opposite-sex couples? (Note: normatively is the key word.)

-Rob

Well here is the thing, I am not arguing about the fact that gay couples can adopt children, or take them from orphanages. What I am arguing is that a government orginization has no right to impede upon a religious orginizations laws, especially since that orginization has been around alot longer than the government. Also, the Church's laws were established long before the European Union's laws. So what the EU is basicly saying is "We are large, in charge, and now can boss whoever we want around. So get used to it."

Originally Posted by Arcain

Well here is the thing, I am not arguing about the fact that gay couples can adopt children, or take them from orphanages. What I am arguing is that a government orginization has no right to impede upon a religious orginizations laws, especially since that orginization has been around alot longer than the government. Also, the Church's laws were established long before the European Union's laws. So what the EU is basicly saying is "We are large, in charge, and now can boss whoever we want around. So get used to it."

Just to make it clearer, it is not the EU that have made this law, in fact the EU gave the member states license to give religious agencies an exception from the law. The UK government has decided not to give the churches (and institutions run by other religions) an exception from the law on the basis that it would be allowing some sexual discrimination.

Just because the church has been around longer than the EU or parliament does not give it any more importance. The UK government is the sovereign governing body in the UK, not the church. Just because the church has had influence in the past doesnt mean that that influence was or is justified. If the churches get an exception, why shouldnt I get one? why cant everyone have one? Then we would be back to square one with people not providing homosexuals with goods and services on the grounds that they are gay. Then why dont we allow discrimination on the basis of race just because black people happen to be immoral sub-humans in the eyes of some "religion".

Slapping the label of "religious" on your argument does not give it more weight.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

What do you mean by demonstrate? Are you looking for mathematical proof? By what means did you arrive at the conclusion that the yardstick you use to measure (i.e., the one you are using now) is the correct one?

Show, beyond reasonable doubt, that either the Bible is accurate, or that homosexual adoption is more detrimental to the child than single-parent adoption, or no adoption at all. Opinions are all equally valid until they are supported by facts. I'm asking for facts.

I am not measuring anything now. In all honesty, I don't care much about this issue I think a more important issue would be the lack of a standard in adoption.

As regards morals in the post-modern world, that is, from the post-modern perspective, they cannot be proven in any case. Is this a double standard, do you think?

I'm not talking about morals, I'm talking about what's going to make a society function. Moral justification is not a valid justification, unless you justify those morals.

In fact, they can. Catholic agencies make up a sum total of about 4% of adoption agencies in the UK. It has no practical effect. That is, on the availability of adoption to gay couples in the UK.

What it will do is something far worse. While the Catholic agencies have a small percentage, they are recognized as taking the, 'hard cases'-- ones that others don't. And by passing this law, the UK is doing what will force the agencies to shut down, because we refuse to operate against our consciences. This will do a grave disservice to the children, the, 'hard cases' served by the Catholic agencies.

Wait...the Catholic agencies would shut down if they had to include gay parents??

As for the italicized, it is not a case that only people who agree with the Church can adopt. I'm sure many who disagree with the Church do adopt-- but what is the case that people who associate in a certain way, that is, who disagree in a certain way by their actions, are precluded.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. That's what I meant.

This comes down, not to discrimination, but to freedom of conscience. And freedom of conscience is something Catholics should be allowed. For all the talk of discrimination, that is exactly what happens when one forces Catholics to do something they consider immoral. England has simply had an anti-Catholic streak for too long. Let's let Catholics... I dunno, be Catholics.

Sorry, but this isn't a valid argument. You're begging the question. This is like saying, "Pornography should be allowed because it is freedom of expression." What do you mean by freedom of conscience? Do you mean Kent Hovind shouldn't be in jail for tax fraud because he thinks income tax is immoral and against his religion?

What do you mean by letting Catholics be Catholics?

They would never throw a child out for that reason. Raising a child with same-sex attraction is not a sin. Far from it. The Catholic Church places sin on freely willed action, not on involuntary attraction. There is nothing intrinsically immoral with being attracted to someone of the same sex. The Church opposes the expression of sexuality between two people of the same sex-- which is different. People with same-sex attraction need to be treated with compassion and love just as all other people should, and perhaps with more, for they carry a heavier burden than most people do. At the same time, the Church does not compromise its moral teaching, even in hard cases, nor should it be expected to.

How do you tell if a couple is having sex? You know more about the adoption policies than I do, so I don't know if this is the case, but let's assume there is significantly more supply than demand in these agencies. Do you not believe that it is immoral to deny a child a family when it has the opportunity to join a perfectly good one? If your only reason is moral, do you think your opposition to gay sex outweighs this? If so, why?

Originally Posted by Arcain

What I am arguing is that a government orginization has no right to impede upon a religious orginizations laws,

Why not? What if that religion is clearly wrong? What if that religion advocates something you consider to be completely immoral, such as genocide? And, best of all, would you object if I stoned you to death next time you sinned?

especially since that orginization has been around alot longer than the government.

Why should this determine anything? Why should we use logical fallacies as the basis for our laws?

Also, the Church's laws were established long before the European Union's laws.

So?

So what the EU is basicly saying is "We are large, in charge, and now can boss whoever we want around. So get used to it."

Not quite.

Originally Posted by HylianShroom

There is no proof that same-sex couples are less capable of bringing up children. Also, what is the ideal character that we are trying to produce in children that same-sex couples cannot achieve? Surely if the chilld is loved and not harmed by the parents then it does not matter how the child turns out in the end. Why do we want to program children to believe the same things as us? none of us have any proof of what is morally right so there is no point in trying to make children beleive in the same morals as us. what would be best for the child is the parents teaching and allowing them to be free-thinking.

In this case we are merely abandoning the children to another specific view of morality: moral relativism.

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

I'm not talking about morals, I'm talking about what's going to make a society function. Moral justification is not a valid justification, unless you justify those morals.

What do you mean by, 'what's going to make a society function.'

Wait...the Catholic agencies would shut down if they had to include gay parents??

It is possible. Personally, I'm in favor of the English state closing down our agencies.

Sorry, but this isn't a valid argument. You're begging the question. This is like saying, "Pornography should be allowed because it is freedom of expression." What do you mean by freedom of conscience? Do you mean Kent Hovind shouldn't be in jail for tax fraud because he thinks income tax is immoral and against his religion?

Just as lawyers shouldn't be forced to represent certain people, just as a doctor should not be forced to perform abortions or euthanasia if he is morally opposed to it, so to I think that the Catholic adoption agencies shouldn't be forced to give children to same-sex couples.

I realize it is a difficult line to draw. Perhaps Kent Hovind really does believe that income tax is immoral. But at the same time, we cannot say the opposite side does not exist-- that there are things that professionals should not be forced to do, i.e., doctors with abortion. While I cannot define a line distinctly (and indeed, if all it took to not pay income tax was to tell the state I thought it was immoral, no one would pay), I urge you not to use such a thing to pretend that no such line exists. We have to reconcile both sets of data-- and I think that it most closely parallels that of doctors and abortion, etc.

Interestingly, I just looked at the wiki article on conscientious objection, and thought it provided some food for thought. It quoted the selective service:

"Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."

Now, obviously this is not about war. But these are actually very wise. As we can see, Kent Hovind's position is more likely based on self-interest than real religious belief. (Besides, the Christian religion has long supported obedience, normatively, to secular and religious superiors, but that's another story.) And in this case, it really is the Church's position-- it is not politics, expedience, or merely self-interested-- and it is reflected in the Church's position prior to the laws, i.e., not made up on the spot.

It is interesting food for thought. I'd like your honest opinion.

What do you mean by letting Catholics be Catholics?

Allow us to live in the contemporary world without living by it's standards. We don't accept the post-modern relativism, and we'd appreciate if it isn't forced upon us.

How do you tell if a couple is having sex? You know more about the adoption policies than I do, so I don't know if this is the case, but let's assume there is significantly more supply than demand in these agencies. Do you not believe that it is immoral to deny a child a family when it has the opportunity to join a perfectly good one? If your only reason is moral, do you think your opposition to gay sex outweighs this? If so, why?

I don't really think that a set of same-sex parents is a, "perfectly good one." As I've said before, I do believe that a set of opposite-sex parents is needed to have a 'perfectly good one.'

-Rob

Indeed. Ok, here is one for you. Suppose you are islamic. I think that your people are all extremists and decide you can't obey your church anymore because I don't like it. Now what would you think about that? Same concept. This is exactly how Hitler began to take down the Jews. Started by slowly taking out certain freedoms they had, until he basicly banned and abolished the jewish religion from germany. Are we not seeing history repeat itself through suttle means once again?

Originally Posted by HylianShroom

Slapping the label of "religious" on your argument does not give it more weight.

It does when you're complaining about the happenings of a adoption center held by that religion that only controls like 3% of them anyway.

Then why dont we allow discrimination on the basis of race just because black people happen to be immoral sub-humans in the eyes of some "religion".

If the KKK have an adoption center, they have the right to refuse it to blacks. If they actually controlled a significant amount, this would be an issue. But it's just a small group with beliefs that you're picking on.

If homosexuals, who can't even marry, are allowed to adopt in 96% of adoption centers, excepting those who have strong personal beliefs about it, I'd say they're doing pretty well.

Originally Posted by Arcain

Indeed. Ok, here is one for you. Suppose you are islamic. I think that your people are all extremists and decide you can't obey your church anymore because I don't like it. Now what would you think about that? Same concept. This is exactly how Hitler began to take down the Jews. Started by slowly taking out certain freedoms they had, until he basicly banned and abolished the jewish religion from germany. Are we not seeing history repeat itself through suttle means once again?

Heck no. This has been going on for a very long time. We haven't recently passed a bill that said gays couldn't adopt from catholic adoption centers. Heck in the past they could not adopt from ANY center! So this is nothing like the jews. If anything it's heterosexual people who are slowly losing their rights, but that's just me.

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Heck no. This has been going on for a very long time. We haven't recently passed a bill that said gays couldn't adopt from catholic adoption centers. Heck in the past they could not adopt from ANY center! So this is nothing like the jews. If anything it's heterosexual people who are slowly losing their rights, but that's just me.

Well I wouldn't say heterosexual people are losing their rights, because nothing has been taken away from them specifically. Plus, you are in Canada. I am in America, but we are not talking about either of those countries. We are talking about the EU. America will not do that because although we believe in gay rights, we also believe in the seperation of church and state, and do not make laws that effect a global religious institution. Which I still say is wrong, and no matter what anyone says, I will still argue the point. I hate to sound so grounded in what I believe, since 99% of the time, I am open to all possiblities in life. This is different. This is a violation of one groups rights in favor of another groups rights.

Originally Posted by Divine Dragoon

It does when you're complaining about the happenings of a adoption center held by that religion that only controls like 3% of them anyway.


If the KKK have an adoption center, they have the right to refuse it to blacks. If they actually controlled a significant amount, this would be an issue. But it's just a small group with beliefs that you're picking on.

If homosexuals, who can't even marry, are allowed to adopt in 96% of adoption centers, excepting those who have strong personal beliefs about it, I'd say they're doing pretty well.

Were not discussing the practical side of the issue here, ive already dealt with that in a previous post. please read it.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Allow us to live in the contemporary world without living by it's standards. We don't accept the post-modern relativism, and we'd appreciate if it isn't forced upon us.

What you are asking for here is an exception from law just because you have certain religious beliefs. You have to live by the law, or 'standards' of society, what you are advocating is the moral self-autonomy of anarchism. If so, make it explicit. If not, then accept law. Anyway, we are not discussing whether law is right in general here, rather whether Catholics should be given an exception from an already passed law, ie the provision of goods and services to homosexuals without discrimination. Until any proof is given of an objective morality then we must assume that gay couples should be no different in the eyes of law than heterosexual couples.

Originally Posted by Divine Dragoon

It does when you're complaining about the happenings of a adoption center held by that religion that only controls like 3% of them anyway.

Apparently these are publicly funded adoption agencies.

If the KKK have an adoption center, they have the right to refuse it to blacks. If they actually controlled a significant amount, this would be an issue. But it's just a small group with beliefs that you're picking on.

I'm certainly not arguing this as a gay rights issue, I'm more concerned about the children who are being told that they can't be adopted by the nice lady because the church doesn't agree with that lady.

Originally Posted by Arcain

America will not do that because although we believe in gay rights, we also believe in the seperation of church and state, and do not make laws that effect a global religious institution.

The EU also has separation of church and state, but I think you misunderstand what that means. All that it means is that the government cannot favour any religion over any other.

Which I still say is wrong, and no matter what anyone says, I will still argue the point. I hate to sound so grounded in what I believe, since 99% of the time, I am open to all possiblities in life. This is different. This is a violation of one groups rights in favor of another groups rights.

Except that it isn't. It's a bunch of people being bigoted and complaining that the government is forcing them to stop being bigoted.