Isn't it sad the way the government claims it's against discrimination, and yet discriminates against catholic

Question

The government says, and I quote Mr Blair "I start from a very firm foundation. There is no place in our society for discrimination. That's why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple. And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination." And yet it is clear that discrimination is not only present, instead it is on the rise!

By stripping Catholics of the right to live by their beliefs and their faith, isn't that discrimination? Catholics believe that marriage is a sacred sacrament that leads to the production of a nourishing family environment, and can only occur between a male and a female. Catholics, DO NOT see being of homosexual orientation as a sin, despite what many out there may think. The church however, teaches that there must only be sexual activity within the marriage, and it teaches that marriage can only occur between male and female.

When catholic adoption agencies are forced to permit adoption by gay couples, they are being forced to act against their beliefs. They are also going against the wishes of the parents who seek such agencies in the first place because they want their children to be raised in their faith. If for example a catholic mother gives her child up for adoption because she is too young and not ready to have the baby, she does so especially because she wants her child to be raised in her faith. Now if that child is adopted by a gay couple, it would be impossible to do that. What would the child be taught when he asks “Dad, and Dad, why didn’t the Catholic Church allow you to get married there?” And the answer is most likely to be “We don’t care what they teach or say. The pope is wrong, the church is wrong, and most importantly Christ is wrong!” And then there would be a feeling of family pride and giggles all around.

The lovely conversation might end with something along the lines of “oh, well in that case I hate Catholics.” How can this be respecting the wishes of the parents, when it is doing the exact opposite?

I ask you isn’t that discrimination? Aren’t we returning to 15th centaury England?

Answer 1

yes

Answer 2

You really should check your facts.

You say allowing a gay couple to adopt is likely to lead to the child hating Catholicism. That's a pretty tough leap in logic. If the gay couple hated Catholicism then why would they use a Catholic adoption agency? And if that's what the Catholic Church was worried about why do they allow atheists, members of other religions and single gays to adopt?

You may quote Tony Blair but you've not done any research. Firstly he is religious (it seems unclear as to whether he is a Catholic or a Protestant) and is married to a Roman Catholic. He wanted the Church to get an exemption from this law, but does not have the political muscle to make that happen. So, when he talks about his 'firm foundation', he's not talking about his own perspective. He's been forced into his decision.

Nobody is forcing Catholics to live against their beliefs and their faiths. The Church accepted the anti discrimination laws and only asked for an exemption on the adoption agencies it runs. However, this was clearly seen for what it was - political manoeuvring. If they could get one exception this could be used for more. Before you knew the new laws would have been full of holes.

Comparing homophobia with anti-Catholic discrimination and claiming the latter is worse is really very silly. People suffer from the discrimination they suffer because of their sexuality. In the UK (and this is a UK issue) I don't know of any Catholics who see any kind of discrimination against them (with the exception of the Royal Family - who are not allowed to be Catholics. And should they want to be, those old laws would be thrown out).

Answer 3

"The church however, teaches that there must only be sexual activity within the marriage"

"If for example a catholic mother gives her child up for adoption because she is too young and not ready to have the baby, she does so especially because she wants her child to be raised in her faith. Now if that child is adopted by a gay couple, it would be impossible to do that."

I imagine if a 'Catholic mother' is too young to to be ready have a child, she is probably not married and as such should not be indulging in sexual activity. How is this not as 'wrong' as indulging in homosexual activity if you are that way orientated. They are both 'wrong' in the eyes of the catholic church so why is one more or less wrong than the other?

While I applaud the work of these Catholic adoption agencies, I think it is wrong for them to 'pre-determine' their adoptee childrens faith by placing them purely with families who are catholic and will brain wash them into that faith as well.

I understand what you are saying about discrimination towards these Catholic agencies, but lets face it, they discriminated first! So if they want to be free to discriminate, they must be open to being discriminated against.

Answer 4

I really appreciated what you had to say about discrimination and that it works both ways. I was a little concerned about the fact that the Catholic church run adoption agencies receive money from the Government but I do suppose that most service companies receive some kind of funding but can still make decisions regarding how their company is run without government intervention. I found it really refreshing to hear a homosexual man point out that you should not refer to the civil partnership that he now has as a marriage as that can only exist between men and women, as described in Genesis. I also thought it interesting that you say that homosexual orientation is not a sin, according to the Catholic church. Does that mean that it's the act of sex between two members of the same sex that is wrong and not the desire/longing for the kind of intimacy that many derive from sex?

Answer 5

Wow, you are mixed up! May I point out a few things you might have missed in your line of thinking? :)

First: Catholic adoption agencies will not be "forced" into adopting their charges into gay couple homes. No one in the government is stripping them of their right to live by their beliefs.

Second: If a woman were a true Catholic and believed in God and followed Scripture, then why would she go and have unmarried sex, have a baby and give it up for adoption? Okay, she made a mistake perhaps. As a Christian, she should own up to her mistake and raise the baby as God intended. There are millions of single mothers in this world and they are truly blessed.

Third: Giving a child up for adoption means you no longer have say-so or control over the child. It means you give up your right to call yourself that child's parent. You don't get to pick and choose what beliefs the adoptive parents will have on the child in 5 years. All you can do is decide (if it's the policy of the agency) what beliefs the parents have now. Which brings up...

Fourth: If the mother even knows who is going to raise her child, then that means she has the option of choice on who gets her child. Some agencies have open adoption, where the birth mother chooses the adoptive parents of her unborn child. If that is the case, then the mother could choose NOT to have a gay couple raise her kid. If the agency does not offer that option, then she wouldn't know who was getting her kid anyway!

Answer 6

I'm not entirely sure of the stance the govt. is making. I do believe that the govt. did not, until recently, advocate same sex couples adopting children. Now, however, Wor Tony seems adamant that he is going to oppose the catholic church on the matter, and it seems more like he is doing so just to pi ss the church off.

I can understand the govt. disregarding the church and all the primitive beliefs it holds and preaches guided by such hypocrisy. Especially in light of the latest allegations of child abuse and financial irregularities. However, to make a decision which will have serious bearing upon the lives of very young children based on the premise of sticking two fingers up at a barbaric and, almost, backward movement such as the catholic church does seem a little rash.

Answer 7

Hi OQ,

It is impossible not to discriminate against someone somewhere. It is the degree of discrimination that is politically acceptable that is being saught.

E.g A white lad wanted to apply for a job in a museum in Brighton, but was told he could not because the job was reserved for a member of the ethnic minorities. The law allows this in certain circumstances. It is called "positive" discrimination.

Well try telling the white lad that! He had worked hard at school to pass his exams with the sole aim of working in a museum, it is all he ever wanted to do. He also lived in Brighton.

There is nothing positive about discrimination. This lad may have been the ideal candidate but he was not allowed the chance to show that.

This issue really is a no win situation.

Answer 8

Sorry, are you joking here?

Are we going to allow anybody exemption from any law they strongly disagree with. Are we going to allow all communists shoplifting rights, or the KKK racial prejudice rights. Don't be absurd. The law should apply equally to everybody.

Nobody is discriminating against Catholics, they have every right to believe what they want and every right to voice that opinion but they don't have a right to special laws just for them, that would be a return to the 15th century.

I cannot believe the illogical arguments being put forward to support the churchs bullying and bigotry.

Answer 9

The real issue here is that these agencies are being publicly funded. It is because of this that they must comply with certain things that may go against their beliefs. This is something that all institutions must do when they accept public tax dollars to fund their organization. If the agencies can somehow become privately funded, then they may act upon whatever beliefs they wish, within legal limits of course.

Answer 10

I'm in a heavily Catholic area of the US, and conservative ones are very few and far between. I've only run into one who believes even remotely the way you do. Also, it just looks like Blair is trying to keep church and state separate. I doubt anyone is forcing the largest religion in the world behind closed doors anytime soon. But members of that religion have quite a lot of bad history to account for.

Answer 11

I see your point. However, you must see the fact. If the religious based adoption agency receives funding from the government, it has an obligation to abide by the law. And the law says NO discrimination, therefore, religious based adoption agencies must not discriminate against people because of their sexual preferences when it comes to adoption and other community services funded by the government.

The only way to solve the issue will be by the religious adoption service to stop receiving government funding and and raise its own funding.