Catholics, Homosexuals and Adoption

I guess it all boils down to: are the adoptive parents criminals? Can they provide for this child? Would they be good parents?

The rest comes down to, whose godamn business is the rest of it?
People's personal attraction has no bearing on their parental responsibilities or capability, therefore it shouldn't make any difference, and people should, you know, keep their damn noses out of other people's business.
I mean seriously, if two people wish to be married or adopt a child they will care for, whose damn business is it to tell them they can't because a group of people disagrees?
People need to learn to mind their own damn business and let other people live their lives.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

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.

I'm concerned about the people who tell children being gay is fine. But, my concerns don't really matter, do they?

Not all gay women are going to be viewed as 'a nice lady', for one thing. Have you ever though that a child might be creeped out by some girl who dresses like a man, and actually wants to adopt him? If you're concerned about the children, for all you know, some of them might actaully agree with the church.

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.

And doesn't give the government right to strip away the rights of a certain religion just because they majority of the population doesn't agree with them. It's not as if they're doing the gays harm (or no more harm than the world does them), they're simply sticking to their beleifs, and in their eyes, protecting children.

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.

Honestly, I'm a bit upset by your use of the world bigoted. According to dictionary.com, bigoted is:

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

–adjective
utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

I'd hardly call every Catholic 'utterly intolerant'. I think it's rude to stereotype every Catholic into such a word. Yes, there are those that fit that discription, but not every Catholic does. To Catholics, they are doing children a favor by not letting gays adopt them. And seeing as there are plenty other places for gays to adopt, I don't understand why there can't be a few places where Catholics can ensure that the children get a home they believe to be suitable for a good upbringing.

Originally Posted by dann

I'm concerned about the people who tell children being gay is fine. But, my concerns don't really matter, do they?

Not all gay women are going to be viewed as 'a nice lady', for one thing. Have you ever though that a child might be creeped out by some girl who dresses like a man, and actually wants to adopt him? If you're concerned about the children, for all you know, some of them might actaully agree with the church.

Homosexuals don't have to (or usually, as far as I know) cross-dress. Regardless, all of your arguments can be made about any couple that wants to adopt children, so why not ban all adoptions in case the people turn out to be bad or the children don't like them?

And doesn't give the government right to strip away the rights of a certain religion just because they majority of the population doesn't agree with them.

That depends. Do those rights harm others? If so, it very well does give a government that kind of power.

It's not as if they're doing the gays harm (or no more harm than the world does them), they're simply sticking to their beleifs, and in their eyes, protecting children.

And as soon as they can give a study that shows that the children are harmed by having gay parents they can not allow them to adopt. Until then they could just as easily say that they simply don't like blacks and not allow them to adopt. After all, being raised by a black might make their children 'more black' which might be bad.

(The above example isn't trying to say that Catholics are racist, but I think you get my point.)

[COLOR=darkorange]Honestly, I'm a bit upset by your use of the world bigoted. According to dictionary.com, bigoted is:
I'd hardly call every Catholic 'utterly intolerant'.

Nor am I. I'm saying that those who are willing to deny children families 'just because' are being bigoted.

I think it's rude to stereotype every Catholic into such a word. Yes, there are those that fit that discription, but not every Catholic does. To Catholics, they are doing children a favor by not letting gays adopt them. And seeing as there are plenty other places for gays to adopt, I don't understand why there can't be a few places where Catholics can ensure that the children get a home they believe to be suitable for a good upbringing.

A few problems. One, these institutions are, apparently, government funded.

Again, I'd have no issue with this if the Catholics had any proof that gays were somehow harmful, but they don't. In that case it very well is bigotry.

Originally Posted by dann

I'm concerned about the people who tell children being gay is fine. But, my concerns don't really matter, do they?

Telling children being gay is fine? Because having generations of people who were taught it was terribly wrong, creating morons who would beat up gay people and even kill them was a friggin genius idea. There's a huge damn difference in someone saying "Hey, BE GAY!", and saying "Alright, so you like the same sex? Well, hey, no big deal, nothing to feel bad about". Children shouldn't have to grow up feeling guilty for something that not only has no bearing on anything, but they can't control.

Gay parents don't raise gay children. They might raise children in a tolerant environment to people's preferences and beliefs, etc. but that's it.

Originally Posted by dann

Not all gay women are going to be viewed as 'a nice lady', for one thing. Have you ever though that a child might be creeped out by some girl who dresses like a man, and actually wants to adopt him? If you're concerned about the children, for all you know, some of them might actaully agree with the church.

You're joking right? Something like the majority of females wear pants now, so what's the difference? Anyway, you've never felt YOUR parents have bad fashion?
And last I checked, not every child has the exact same beliefs as their parents. So who cares if a kid doesn't like what someone wears or thinks? Are they being properly taken care of? Is that child being show the love and respect it deserves?
Or is the child a bigotted whiny little prat who is too stupid to see there's a caring family prepared to take care of it and provide for it's future, which is a lot more than can be said for it's previous parents or the church?

Originally Posted by sonataofstorms

You're joking right? Something like the majority of females wear pants now, so what's the difference? Anyway, you've never felt YOUR parents have bad fashion?
And last I checked, not every child has the exact same beliefs as their parents. So who cares if a kid doesn't like what someone wears or thinks? Are they being properly taken care of? Is that child being show the love and respect it deserves?
Or is the child a bigotted whiny little prat who is too stupid to see there's a caring family prepared to take care of it and provide for it's future, which is a lot more than can be said for it's previous parents or the church?

That also never happens until much later in the childs development. Children are extremely impressionable when they are young. So they see daddy and daddy go at it, next thing you know, they kiss a boy at school and get in trouble. Same as seeing mommy and daddy kissing and kissing a girl in school, but in grade school, you don't get in nearly as much trouble. Also the kid would be harrassed by his/her fellow students for it. So is their harm to the child? Indeed so.

Originally Posted by Arcain

That also never happens until much later in the childs development. Children are extremely impressionable when they are young. So they see daddy and daddy go at it, next thing you know, they kiss a boy at school and get in trouble. Same as seeing mommy and daddy kissing and kissing a girl in school, but in grade school, you don't get in nearly as much trouble. Also the kid would be harrassed by his/her fellow students for it. So is their harm to the child? Indeed so.

That's a pretty silly argument, last I checked, seeing two males kiss one another (not GOING AT IT, as if any parent would do something like that in front of a child) doesn't make a child want to do the same.

Harrassed by their fellow students? In grade school? That'd be like a kid harrassing someone because their adoptive parent was black. Children don't develop ridiculous prejudices until somewhat later in life, and if they do, that's the other child's parents fault for showing them those prejudices in their household. Hate is an easy thing to pass on, when it's constantly flaunted around, as is disgust for something one doesn't "approve" of.

Originally Posted by sonataofstorms

That's a pretty silly argument, last I checked, seeing two males kiss one another (not GOING AT IT, as if any parent would do something like that in front of a child) doesn't make a child want to do the same.

Harrassed by their fellow students? In grade school? That'd be like a kid harrassing someone because their adoptive parent was black. Children don't develop ridiculous prejudices until somewhat later in life, and if they do, that's the other child's parents fault for showing them those prejudices in their household. Hate is an easy thing to pass on, when it's constantly flaunted around, as is disgust for something one doesn't "approve" of.

Hmm, then you don't remember grade school very well do you? Especially as fast as young children mature in the 21st century, it is alot more common then you would come to believe. If parents are prejudice, the child will normally be too at such an early age. You also haven't seen the news lately either. Parents were arrested for giving their kids marijuana. Now do you think parents going at it is that far off of that? No, not really. So the arguement isn't silly, what is silly is the lack of understanding of todays youth and how they are affected by even the slightest happenings at home.

^^firstly, parents looking to adopt are thoroughly investigated and assessed as to whether they will make good responsible parents, so in most cases i dont think they'd be careless enough to let their child watch them have sex. And anyway, you are implying that a child copying a gay parent is wrong whereas a child copying a straight parent is right, and the whole point of this is that no-one can show that being gay is immoral. And to be honest, i hardly think your parents kissing or showing any kind of affection is going to influence your sexuality. Seeing gay people doesnt make you attracted to people of the same sex. besides, children have plenty of examples in other parents of heterosexual relationships, so they are not being somehow brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is the way to go.

Originally Posted by HylianShroom

^^firstly, parents looking to adopt are thoroughly investigated and assessed as to whether they will make good responsible parents, so in most cases i dont think they'd be careless enough to let their child watch them have sex. And anyway, you are implying that a child copying a gay parent is wrong whereas a child copying a straight parent is right, and the whole point of this is that no-one can show that being gay is immoral. And to be honest, i hardly think your parents kissing or showing any kind of affection is going to influence your sexuality. Seeing gay people doesnt make you attracted to people of the same sex. besides, children have plenty of examples in other parents of heterosexual relationships, so they are not being somehow brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is the way to go.

Actually, the way your parents act can very well change the development of your sexuality. If a child sees that a mother and father are loving and care for each other and the well-being of their child, would the child not look towards the way they act as a positive? What about if the parents are constantly fighting, the mother constantly coming and going in the childs life, would that not present some sort of resentment in the child towards the mother? Which, at a very youthful age can change the way you look at a sex in general. I am going to use myself as an example. My mother left my druggy father when I was two. I didn't have a male figure in my life (save for my grandfather, but he is off the subject at the moment) until I was about 8. By that time, I had become so resentful of men who came into my mothers life, and was so used to be the oldest male in my household, that by the time a man came into my life and eventually married my mother, no matter what he could do, I was resentful. For some reason, there was that something built in me that resented fathers. My step-father is a good man too. He provides for his family, but for the longest time, he could do nothing right in my eyes, and by the time I got over it (which sadly, was only about 3 years ago) I had done and said things that were irreversable. So I was highly resentful of men alot of times. Now if something like that ould change the way I thought about people, do you not think that it could also effect someones sexuality? There are so many subtle things that change a person's ideals, sexuality, and even intelligence. This is why I don't believe people are born gay. I don't believe people are born straight either. Sexual attraction develops within the first 6 years of a childs life, and I believe things that happen in that childs early life can subtly change which way they lean.

Originally Posted by Arcain

Actually, the way your parents act can very well change the development of your sexuality. If a child sees that a mother and father are loving and care for each other and the well-being of their child, would the child not look towards the way they act as a positive? What about if the parents are constantly fighting, the mother constantly coming and going in the childs life, would that not present some sort of resentment in the child towards the mother? Which, at a very youthful age can change the way you look at a sex in general. I am going to use myself as an example. My mother left my druggy father when I was two. I didn't have a male figure in my life (save for my grandfather, but he is off the subject at the moment) until I was about 8. By that time, I had become so resentful of men who came into my mothers life, and was so used to be the oldest male in my household, that by the time a man came into my life and eventually married my mother, no matter what he could do, I was resentful. For some reason, there was that something built in me that resented fathers. My step-father is a good man too. He provides for his family, but for the longest time, he could do nothing right in my eyes, and by the time I got over it (which sadly, was only about 3 years ago) I had done and said things that were irreversable. So I was highly resentful of men alot of times. Now if something like that ould change the way I thought about people, do you not think that it could also effect someones sexuality? There are so many subtle things that change a person's ideals, sexuality, and even intelligence. This is why I don't believe people are born gay. I don't believe people are born straight either. Sexual attraction develops within the first 6 years of a childs life, and I believe things that happen in that childs early life can subtly change which way they lean.

maybe so, but you have ignored the fact that a childs parents are not the only example of adult relationships that a child is exposed to. The parents of the child's friends, teachers etc. Just because your parents are gay doesnt mean that you will follow this trend. Also, being gay used to be illegal. Most children, in fact probably 99.99% would have had heterosexual parents, even if their family was a broken one. Yet gay people still emerged from this culture, and in fact grew until now when homosexuality is widely tolerated. Does this not tell us that there can be much greater factors in determining sexualty than the sexuality of the parents?

Originally Posted by HylianShroom

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

Do you agree that normatively that children should be given to a opposite-sex couple? (note: important word is normatively.) This is, in my mind, an important question which you will have to answer before I can assess whether your position is really theoretical or pratical.

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.

Not at all. I'm merely extending the principle that one should not be forced to do something which they find morally abhorrent. These sorts of, 'exceptions' are common in countries which prize the freedom of their citizens. Laws are recognized as normatively binding, not absolutely. But, do you really want to get into an argument about the nature of law?

-Rob

Originally Posted by HylianShroom

maybe so, but you have ignored the fact that a childs parents are not the only example of adult relationships that a child is exposed to. The parents of the child's friends, teachers etc. Just because your parents are gay doesnt mean that you will follow this trend. Also, being gay used to be illegal. Most children, in fact probably 99.99% would have had heterosexual parents, even if their family was a broken one. Yet gay people still emerged from this culture, and in fact grew until now when homosexuality is widely tolerated. Does this not tell us that there can be much greater factors in determining sexualty than the sexuality of the parents?

Actually, you partially missed my point. Children are exposed to so many elements with their family and friends at an early age. Just because you are gay doesn't mean your parents had to have been. What if how your parents acted in their marriage affected how you viewed a heterosexual relationship? That is the point I am getting at.

Well I'm a Catholic and putting my views of Homosexualality aside, if gay parent's want to adopt children then they can always go to another orphanage as there are lots and they will not be missing out as the churches orphanges don't make up a big percentage of orphanges in England, well at least I think they don't and correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Do you agree that normatively that children should be given to a opposite-sex couple? (note: important word is normatively.) This is, in my mind, an important question which you will have to answer before I can assess whether your position is really theoretical or pratical.

I dont believe that it is a normative issue, as i dont believe that any absolute, objective positions have been proven logically. The word normative implies an absolute moral standard, an ought or should proposition. Ought same-sex couples be allowed to adopt? i dont know. But since we are all humans and no-one has proven an absolute moral standard i think we should all be treated equally regardless of race, gender or sexuality. Same-sex partners should have the same rights as straight couples.
The practical issue here is whether letting Catholic agencies reject gays makes it hard for gays to adopt. It really doesnt, as their agencies only cover 4% in england/britain. However, if we start giving exceptions based on belief then anyone could claim exceptions.

Not at all. I'm merely extending the principle that one should not be forced to do something which they find morally abhorrent. These sorts of, 'exceptions' are common in countries which prize the freedom of their citizens. Laws are recognized as normatively binding, not absolutely. But, do you really want to get into an argument about the nature of law?

-Rob

If one finds it morally abhorent to pay their taxes, should they be given an exception? The point is that one persons beliefs about morality do not have any sway over law until that moral position is proven to be true. Since this has not happened yet, no-one can that their moral views give them more rights than others. Our current system of law, democracy, is derived from utilitarian principles ie the greatest happiness of the greatest number, which entails majority decisions. laws are not governed by a sense of morality, but by the fact that we are all equal. we all have an equal vote. whether or not this vote makes a difference is another matter (obviously representative democracy has major faults). We are all equals.

Polish government is really pro-catcholical, and anti-homosexual. They want to ban any traces of homosexuals here, and it`s "foolish propaganda". As for me - i don`t care. Im hetero, and as long as homos do nothing to me, they can exist. If they want to be with people of the same sex - its okay for me, its their choice. I have no idea why all people are against it, if it has nothing to do with them. Its like religion, or other parts of everyday`s life - its your choice, and nobody else should interfere with them.

I'm really hoping to be able to adopt in the future, though I don't think I'd would first go to a catholic adotption center to find a kid. I don't agree with their views on homosexuality, I but I can respect them enough not to impose my own demands on them.