Gay Adoption?

Question

The UK is undergoing a re-think of its discrimination act where no person can be refused services based on race, religion, sexual preference etc.

This has sparked a huge debate with the Catholic church and the goverment that they should be allowed a 'concession' to disregard the new law with regards to voluntary Catholic adoption agencies (which are paid for by the state and not the church) stating that it is against their 'conscience'.

What are your thoughs on this? Will the decision to allow the Catholic chuch this concession not laugh in the face of democracy by giving the message that you have to fit a pre-determined profile to be legiable for all goods and services and yet again prove the churchs' meddling in politics?

Answer 1

I think that denying children a good and loving home based on religion should be illegal. There are already so many children in this world that most will never find a loving home. People need to get their heads out of the sand and learn to accept that the world isn't a perfect place and children deserve loving parents, whether those parents are gay or not.

Answer 2

It's a weird one, because by forcing the Catholic Church not to discriminate against homosexuals, they're sort of ignoring and discriminating against their beliefs. On the other hand, those beliefs are themselves discriminatory. It's just that a lot of people are into Catholicism and for some reason it has sway over many people and politics. But if, for example, you had a group that was overtly racist, or sexist, the government wouldn't say, oh, actually, it's alright for YOU to be racist and sexist, because it's part of your belief system. And it's the same thing with homosexuality. Most people obviously don't choose to be gay- why would they? All my gay friends wish they were attracted to the opposite sex, less discrimination and more choice of partners! So it's not about an 'immoral lifestyle choice' or whatever the Catholic Church would have you believe. In which case, there is absolutely no way the government should pander to their nasty prejudiced views. They should take a stand against homophobia and hatred and tell the Church that what really matters is how well off the child is going to be, and to stop being so foolish as to think a child adopted by a gay couple is likely to be subjected to 24 hour sex orgies or whatever it is they think homosexual people get up to. If there are two loving people willing to give a homeless child a loving home then the Church should do what Jesus would do, and let them have it, no matter what gender those people are. p.s- don't whole groups of nuns (all the same sex) look after kids in orphanages???

Answer 3

If the church cannot in good conscience operate its adoption services without discriminating against people, then I respect them for stepping entirely out of the picture. However, the suggestion that the law should be changed just to suit their prejudices is nothing short of offensive.

Suppose it were a DIFFERENT prejudice we were talking about here. Suppose an adoption service said that they couldn't operate within the law because they thought that placing a child with a black family was nothing short of child abuse. An adoption agency with that position would be lucky not to be run out of town on a rail.

And frankly, I think this throws a lot of light on how warped the Catholic adoption agencies must have been operating anyway. Hearing this defense from them makes me wonder if we shouldn't actually investigate some of their old adoptions and see if they've screwed those up.

In short, they have caused their judgement to be suspect. I therefore want them entirely removed from any kind of important decision, if it can possibly be helped. It's not like they have the best track record with children in the first place, after all.

Answer 4

You put this quite well. My view is simple, if the Church wants to discriminate then it shouldn't be allowed to run adoption agencies, etc. It is better for a child to be in a family unit (whether a man and a woman, two men or two women) than in care. There are not enough people adopting. So it stands to reason that the Church's view is bad for children.

Answer 5

Seems to me that it is Government interferring in church business. Family is something Government ought to stay out of. Unfortunately the church has such a terrible history of not practicing it's ordered conduct. No need to go into all of this but as an example many Christians are upset by abortion but had the church done it's job regarding unwed mothers and unwanted children, it became necessary for Government to get involved.

The church should give up this tax help for doing their job and quit building more buildings, and use the money given in offerings to do those things ordered in scripture first and these other secondary things if there is any left over after we Christians do that which we should. As much money as the churches receive we still have people on earth with no clean drinking water. Seems to me we will have things to answer for whether we are forgiven or not.

SHAME ON YOU UNACCOUNTABLE CHURCH LEADERS YOU ALL NEED A GOOD SPANKING

Answer 6

THIS TOPIC REALLY RILES ME!

I can't believe some of the tosh I've read!

'How hard would it be for the child?' - Do you mean like selfish straight mothers in the 1950s who wanted to raise the 'illegitimate' child themselves? A mixed-race couple of the same era who wanted to have children? Society moves on and will get over it. A well-rounded, confident child can withstand anything people might say. Who's cruel enough to insult a child? Shame on you for teaching your kids values that would make them taunt someone for being 'different'. It's not 'observing the norms of society'? And what are those norms? That slavery is okay, that political leaders should be born and not chosen, that women belong in the home?

'It's not natural for them to have children.' - Guess what... gay people have been having children since time began. Most do under the guise of marriage, which may make for an unhappy marriage or a 'coming out' after the children are born. Most gay people, due to the way society is, do 'experiment' with the opposite sex in their formative years. What about bisexuals? What about a loving gay uncle who may raise his niece and nephew because their parents are dead? Being able to biologically produce a child has no relevance to the amount of love it will receive.

'It's selfish.' - Selfish to give love and have to provide for another human being?

'The Government is interferring [sic] in church business.' - I hate to tell you, but it's been quite a long time since the church itself has been a dominating political entity. They can't raise taxes, pass laws, fight in wars or send sinners to jail. It's the government that regulates society, and the authority of the government is above the authority of any organised church.

Children of gay parents are not any more likely to be gay than if they were raised by straight parents. Aren't gay children produced by straight parents all the time? These children won't grow up in a bubble... they'll have aunts and uncles, grandparents, friends' parents and the world's media to show them that straight couples are the majority in society.

The Catholic Church's attitude on this matter is basically saying, 'Please show us tolerance in our views that you don't agree with... so that we can turn around and discrimate against a group of people.' Even worse: 'to pass the Equality Act against discrimination of gay people is discrimination against OUR beliefs'. Does that mean you should be allowed to follow the tenets of your religion regardless of what the state says, because the state is lacking those same morals? In that case, should we start letting Muslim women in burqas walk through passport control? Should we accept that suicide bombers 'defending' jihad are just following their religion? Should we allow men to have more than one wife if their religion says it's OK? Should girls of 13 be forced into marriage? Or is someone's right to follow their religion 'more valid' that someone else's right?

The Equality Act is to protect homosexuals from discrimination, just as people of dfferent races, genders, religions, ages, etc. are protected. Is it OK to discriminate sometimes? Should we discriminate if we don't like them or don't approve of what they do?

How long is it going to take us to learn that labels aren't important? Before we're gay or straight, Catholic or Protestant, Hindu or atheist, male or female, black or white, young or old, etc., WE'RE ALL HUMAN BEINGS!

Answer 7

Methinks that it's a sensitive issue involving the child. Now to be honest, I believe that it is a lifestyle, and nothing more. It's a choice. Now should two people live in this manner, nothing arises. But when the child is brought into this lifestyle, it perplexes the notion of male and female. (Because they see the man/man or Woman/woman more commonly.) Now I would think the issue is that both sides of the parties know that this is not true, therefore not really allowing the child to truly understand the nature of man and woman, which has been taught and passed to us under any circumstances. I mean I think it would be fair to let the child see first hand, and not seduced, or drawn into such a lifestyle. Let the child decide for himself instead of possibly confusing him later during life. OR understand that male and female was the original partner in life, being the male creates and the female carries and nurtures. (No offense ladies)

Answer 8

The Catholic church has always meddled in politics. That's nothing new. Its time to stand up. Say, how about a Protestant church.

Answer 9

Gay means happy. So no I see no problem with it. As far as homosexuals adopting if you got the money and want to adopt then go for it. 2 gay people or 2 lesbians can raise a child just as well as a man and a woman can, as long as the child isnt beaten then let them be loved and adopted. I am not for or against gay/lesbian rights. I love men.

Answer 10

I’ve heard all those negative arguments before, only that time they were talking about black people and giving them the same rights as whites. The law will be changed and if religious people don’t like it, then too bad. You punish the bully, not the victim.