Church stops adoptions, forced to consider gays [Archive]

View Full Version : Church stops adoptions, forced to consider gays

Bulldogcakes

03-11-2006, 04:03 AM

<h1><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/10/catholic_charities_to_halt_adoptions_over_issue_in volving_gays_1142014098/" target="_self" title="Catholic Charities to halt adoptions over issue involving gays">Catholic Charities to halt adoptions over issue involving gays</a>BOSTON (AP) -- The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday
it would stop providing adoption services because state law requires
them to consider gays and lesbians as parents. </h1>The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese has
provided adoption services for about a century. But it says state law
allowing gays to adopt runs counter to church teachers on homosexuality."But now, we have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve," they said.The
state's four Catholic bishops said earlier this month that the law
threatens the church's religious freedom by forcing it to do something
it considers immoral.<h1></h1>

torker

03-11-2006, 04:36 AM

They are going to open abortion clinics before them gays get those babies.

Tall_James

03-11-2006, 05:04 AM

Keep church and state separate!

Death Metal Moe

03-11-2006, 05:13 AM

I hate the church so much.  They can't take a gay couple adopting a kid even though they meet the criteria to support it and rasie it.I hope this means they lose some sort of federal funding.

Tall_James

03-11-2006, 05:25 AM

Death Metal Moe wrote: I hate the church so much.  They can't take a gay couple adopting a kid even though they meet the criteria to support it and rasie it.I hope this means they lose some sort of federal funding.Its fine to hate them.  However, the separation of church and state goes both ways.  If the encroachment of religion into the government causes you consternation, the encroachment of government into religion should be viewed with the same eye.  The Catholic Church (my faith btw) should not have to change the tenets of their faith in order help children get adopted.  With so many children needing to get adopted, why piss off one of the largest advocates of the adoption process?  Look, I realize that the Catholic hierarchy is pretty fucked up right now and in need of royal ass-kicking but kids need homes.  There are many agencies out there, private, religious or governmental, that are doing what they can to place children in a stable, loving home (straight or gay).  We need all of them.

Death Metal Moe

03-11-2006, 05:38 AM

Well I'm no champion of civil rights here, but is it really right that an organization can just say "Everyone's welcome, except you 2 guys holding hands over there?"If it said "Irish need not apply" everyone would be up in arms, but because it's part of someone's "faith" the discrimination is OK.I don't want to see the government take over these adoptions personally because everything the government puts it's hands in seems to turn to shit.  But what the church is basically saying is they'd rather give kids to less capable straight homes than ever have kids raised by gay parents.  That's not a responsible position to take in the placement of these kids, so maybe they shouldn't do it anymore.

FUNKMAN

03-11-2006, 05:41 AM

Church stops adoptions, forced to consider gays you would have to imagine there are many gay people attending services and giving donations. will they go so far as to having you 'declare' you're sexuality before you are allowed to attend services?can't they figure out that gay parents can provide as much love and care as straight parents, and that being a straight parent doesn't guarantee a child is not gonna be abused or neglected?

Bulldogcakes

03-11-2006, 06:12 AM

There's good arguments to be made on both sides of this, but the bottom line is the city of Boston has just lost a valuable service (provided to them at far lower cost then the city itself could ever do) You have to respect people's religious convictions. Even if you disagree with them. That's what I call tolerance. That being said, gays should enjoy all the rights that straight people do. But that applies to government provided services. It doesnt mean private organizations like the church have to give up their beliefs in order to do charity work. This law goes too far, and the people of the city of Boston lose a valuable service as a result.

Tall_James

03-11-2006, 06:33 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: There's good arguments to be made on both sides of this, but the bottom line is the city of Boston has just lost a valuable service (provided to them at far lower cost then the city itself could ever do) You have to respect people's religious convictions. Even if you disagree with them. That's what I call tolerance. That being said, gays should enjoy all the rights that straight people do. But that applies to government provided services. It doesnt mean private organizations like the church have to give up their beliefs in order to do charity work. This law goes too far, and the people of the city of Boston lose a valuable service as a result.  I couldn't have put it better myself.  Well said.

TheMojoPin

03-11-2006, 08:18 AM

So, what, do they just toss out all the kids onto the curb to get picked up on Tuesday?

suggums

03-11-2006, 08:35 AM

i don't think this law goes to far when the following happens:"Eight members of Catholic Charities board later stepped down in protest
of the bishops' stance. The 42-member board had voted unanimously in
December to continue considering gay households for adoptions." -from the article in question.this is a bunch of asshole bishops going all phelps family on the catholic charities, and even their OWN MEMBERS aren't supporting this.let the gays adopt and find something slightly less petty to worry about

TheRealEddie

03-11-2006, 09:55 AM

I think gay marriage is also at play here. Its clear that the chuch MUST fight adoption by gay couples for it is a big reason often sited by people who oppose gay marriage. Once the notion of gay adoption becomes a non-issue, then the church loses yet another shackle on their flock.Even though the city of Boston loses out here, I still agree with the law. The church has a vested interest in controlling adoption and its not up to them to give out babies to who they see fit only.

HBox

03-11-2006, 10:09 AM

I do not accept the "tolerating intolerance" argument. The Catholic Church is the one who took their ball and went home. They are the ones who value sticking it to the gays over finding these children new homes. 

This message was edited by HBox on 3-11-06 @ 2:11 PM

Death Metal Moe

03-11-2006, 09:54 PM

They shuffle gay Fathers from parish to parish, but worry about this.Fucking useless.

Death Metal Moe

03-11-2006, 09:55 PM

HBox wrote: I do not accept the "tolerating intolerance" argument. The Catholic Church is the one who took their ball and went home. They are the ones who value sticking it to the gays over finding these children new homes. This message was edited by HBox on 3-11-06 @ 2:11 PM They're trying to save your soul, heathen!Get bent religion.

HBox

03-11-2006, 10:33 PM

However, the separation of church and state goes both ways.That is exactly what is happening here. The Catholic Church wants to provide a service, just like anyone else. And the local government has written laws that regulate how orgainizations who provide that service must act. And every organization who provides that service, religious or not, must abide by those rules. Giving the Catholic Church a pass because of their religion would be a violation of church and state. Why should they be able to ingore the law? Can other organizations now do whatever they like? Can Islamic organizations deny Jews from adopting? Can atheistic organization deny adoptions to religious families? Is it anything goes, if you believe in it strong enough? Nowhere did the government step in and tell the Catholic Church what to believe. But if they are going to provide services they have to obey the law like anyone else. If that goes against a belief of theirs, and they find that more important than the welfare of children, well then, at least we now know what they value.

Bulldogcakes

03-12-2006, 03:33 AM

HBox wrote:  Giving the Catholic Church a pass because of their religion would be a violation of church and state. Why should they be able to ingore the law? Can other organizations now do whatever they like? Can Islamic organizations deny Jews from adopting? Can atheistic organization deny adoptions to religious families? Is it anything goes, if you believe in it strong enough?Wow, you're just lost. The seperation of church and state is exactly
about churches being allowed to practice their interpretation of THEIR
religion freely. And chuches are exempt from all sorts of laws. They
dont pay taxes, do they? Nowhere did the government step in and tell the Catholic Church what to believe. But if they are going to provide services they have to obey the law like anyone else. If that goes against a belief of theirs, and they find that more important than the welfare of children, well then, at least we now know what they value. Exactly, but this is a bad law because it makes the church have to choose between supporting a lifestyle it finds immoral and doing charity work. The city is better served by making allowances for different points of view and bringing everyone together to make the city better. This law says "If you dont follow our rules and ethics, you cant participate in this work". The Church isn't shoving its views down anyones throat (you can use a non-religious adoption service if you're gay), the city is. <blockquote />

sr71blackbird

03-12-2006, 04:54 AM

Why cant there exist organizations that have the right to set forth practices that are in step with their convictions?  I think if there was, say, a black adoption organization that sought to place black children into foster black homes, no one in their right mind would counter them for fear of racial ramifications.  But thats just a part of it.  I belive that a liberal haven such as Boston would absolutely go out of its way to create this law with the Catholic church in mind for just this purpose. Catholics cant fight back, for fear of being labeled as intolerant to homosexuality.  See, we cant change the mindset of Islamic extermists, peaceful or otherwise, but the Catholic church is fair game.  Its a shame. Now kids will suffer.  Good job!

HBox

03-12-2006, 11:04 AM

Wow, you're just lost. The seperation of church
and state is exactly about churches being allowed to practice their
interpretation of THEIR religion freely. And chuches are exempt from all sorts of laws. They dont pay taxes, do they? They can practice their interpretation of their religion freely. Nobody's FORCING them to continue arranging adoptions and then FORCING them to consider gays. The government said if you are going to continue to do this you will not be able to discriminate, and the Church said discriminating is more important, and they stopped.But really, where would this end. How much leeway would you give these religious organizations? What if the Catholic Church said "We find it immoral to place children in non-Catholic homes, since we would be leading them on a path to hell." I guess that'd be A-OK, right?And you ignored the point. Does this discrimination have any limits? Exactly, but this is a bad law because it makes
the church have to choose between supporting a lifestyle it finds
immoral and doing charity work. The city is better served by making
allowances for different points of view and bringing everyone together
to make the city better. This law says "If you dont follow our rules
and ethics, you cant participate in this work". Again, I'm not tolerating intolerance. If the Catholic's want to show some credible research, then we can have a dialogue. As long as they continue saying "OUR BOOK SAYS IT'S BAD!" they can either take a fit and leave or follow the rules. We're in reality dealing with reality. Their beliefs can stay in their church and in their private lives and in their speech and anywhere except where they provide charity services. The Church isn't shoving its views down anyones
throat (you can use a non-religious adoption service if you're gay),
the city is.  No, they were using a public service to push they're agenda. They didn't want kids with gay couples, and did everything in their power to stop it. Again, they want to make an argument with credible evidence, go ahead. Otherwise, get in line. And let's examine the the actual ramifications of the Church excluding gays. There aren't enough families willing to adopt as is. Having a large organization ignore a large group of people just clogs up the system and makes children live under state care longer. It costs money, and hurts the kids. And second of all, ingoring the most highly qualified of the gay couples inevitably means that children will be placed in worse families, which also means you are raising the likelyhood of placing the kids into problem homes. I would argue that the Catholic Church's actions are having a negative imapct on these children, and therefore gives even more reason for this law. Why cant there exist organizations that have the right to set forth
practices that are in step with their convictions? Because you have to treat all organizations equally. You allow one to discrimnate for no reason other than "This is what we believe." then anyone can. And everyone will be able to do whatever they want, if they believe it. [quote]I think if there
was, say, a black adoption organization that sought to place black
children into foster black homes, no one in their righ

Bulldogcakes

03-12-2006, 04:57 PM

Lets try this. Lets say the the city of Boston passed a law saying you could not consider a person's religious or political affiliations when choosing an adoption family. And now city agencies will have to turn kids over to families with known ties to neo-nazi groups, the KKK, and terrorist organizations. Then city workers start resigning en masse, saying they wont take part in this policy. Wouldn't they be "taking their ball and going home" too?

HBox

03-12-2006, 06:51 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Lets try this. Lets say the the city of Boston passed a law saying you could not consider a person's religious or political affiliations when choosing an adoption family. And now city agencies will have to turn kids over to families with known ties to neo-nazi groups, the KKK, and terrorist organizations. Then city workers start resigning en masse, saying they wont take part in this policy. Wouldn't they be "taking their ball and going home" too?   Well, for those organizations you mentioned, I think the violence they are so frequently involved in would merit examination.

TheMojoPin

03-12-2006, 07:00 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Lets try this. Lets say the the city of Boston passed a law saying you could not consider a person's religious or political affiliations when choosing an adoption family. And now city agencies will have to turn kids over to families with known ties to neo-nazi groups, the KKK, and terrorist organizations. Then city workers start resigning en masse, saying they wont take part in this policy. Wouldn't they be "taking their ball and going home" too? How's this any different than the ridiculous "if you allow gay marriage, soon people will be marrying ANIMALS!" argument?  Talk about comparing apples and hand grenades...

TheRealEddie

03-12-2006, 07:17 PM

HBox wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: Lets try this. Lets say the the city of Boston passed a law saying you could not consider a person's religious or political affiliations when choosing an adoption family. And now city agencies will have to turn kids over to families with known ties to neo-nazi groups, the KKK, and terrorist organizations. Then city workers start resigning en masse, saying they wont take part in this policy. Wouldn't they be "taking their ball and going home" too? Well, for those organizations you mentioned, I think the violence they are so frequently involved in would merit examination.    This is an important point here: Adoption agencies have criteria that candidate parents have to meet. These criteria are established to protect the children. Now the examples you gave, neo-nazi groups, KKK, and terrorist organizations fall under hate-groups and thus affiliation with such groups would clearly set off red flags to adoption agencies. I'm not sure what the exact guidelines are for perspective parents, I'd love to see them. So the question is, its clear why the groups you mentioned do not make for good parenting material, how are gay couples in the same boat?

Death Metal Moe

03-12-2006, 07:19 PM

TheRealEddie wrote: So the question is, its clear why the groups you mentioned do not make for good parenting material, how are gay couples in the same boat?  Because they need it to be in order for their pro church argument to stand on anything.

Bulldogcakes

03-13-2006, 03:32 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: Lets try this. Lets say the the city of Boston passed a law saying you could not consider a person's religious or political affiliations when choosing an adoption family. And now city agencies will have to turn kids over to families with known ties to neo-nazi groups, the KKK, and terrorist organizations. Then city workers start resigning en masse, saying they wont take part in this policy. Wouldn't they be "taking their ball and going home" too? How's this any different than the ridiculous "if you allow gay marriage, soon people will be marrying ANIMALS!" argument? Talk about comparing apples and hand grenades... All I did was substitute a law that forced people on the Left to deal with people they disagreed with, to see how the shoe fits on the other foot. I thought what I was doing was fairly obvious, but you clearly didn't get it. And I dont agree with the argument that "if you allow gay marriage, soon people will be marrying ANIMALS!" for a simple reason. Consenting adults. Animals cant give consent. No further questions, your Honor. <blockquote />

HBox

03-13-2006, 03:47 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: Lets try this. Lets say the the city of Boston passed a law saying you could not consider a person's religious or political affiliations when choosing an adoption family. And now city agencies will have to turn kids over to families with known ties to neo-nazi groups, the KKK, and terrorist organizations. Then city workers start resigning en masse, saying they wont take part in this policy. Wouldn't they be "taking their ball and going home" too? How's this any different than the ridiculous "if you allow gay marriage, soon people will be marrying ANIMALS!" argument? Talk about comparing apples and hand grenades... All I did was substitute a law that forced people on the Left to deal with people they disagreed with, to see how the shoe fits on the other foot. I thought what I was doing was fairly obvious, but you clearly didn't get it. And I dont agree with the argument that "if you allow gay marriage, soon people will be marrying ANIMALS!" for a simple reason. Consenting adults. Animals cant give consent. No further questions, your Honor.   This isn't JUST about people with disagreeable lifestyles. Involvement with those organizations is verifiably dangerous. Being gay is not. An acceptable comparison would be hardcore, traditionalist Christianist familes adopting kids. I don't accept that lifestyle, wouldn't want a child of mine raised that way, but it's not dangerous, and I wouldn't support nor want any law stopping them from adopting kids.

Bulldogcakes

03-13-2006, 03:52 PM

TheRealEddie wrote:This is an important point here: Adoption agencies have criteria that candidate parents have to meet. These criteria are established to protect the children. Now the examples you gave, neo-nazi groups, KKK, and terrorist organizations fall under hate-groups and thus affiliation with such groups would clearly set off red flags to adoption agencies. I'm not sure what the exact guidelines are for perspective parents, I'd love to see them. So the question is, its clear why the groups you mentioned do not make for good parenting material, how are gay couples in the same boat?  Fine, I was adressing a different point that H-Box made. To return to my original posts (which it seems haven't read, based on where you seem to be going with this) Gay couples can use city adoption agencies, start their own adoption services, or use any other non-Catholic religious agency which will accept them. All of which I have zero problem with. But this law forces Catholic (and other religious groups with similar beliefs) adoption services to play by the same rules as the secular ones. Which completely dismisses concerns regarding their faith. And you may not care about that, but the tenets of the Church are the whole reason why it exists to begin with. How are they supposed to preach against "sinful" behavior on Sunday then hand out babies the rest of the week to gay people? I would imagine they would not want to consider unmarried straight couples either. This law forces them to. It's heavy handed, overly broad, dismissive of their concerns and simply wrong.   <blockquote />

Death Metal Moe

03-13-2006, 03:56 PM

I think what everyone has forgotten here is Religion is dumb and for the weak willed.

TheRealEddie

03-13-2006, 06:26 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Fine, I was adressing a different point that H-Box made. To return to my original posts (which it seems haven't read, based on where you seem to be going with this) Gay couples can use city adoption agencies, start their own adoption services, or use any other non-Catholic religious agency which will accept them. All of which I have zero problem with. But this law forces Catholic (and other religious groups with similar beliefs) adoption services to play by the same rules as the secular ones. Which completely dismisses concerns regarding their faith. And you may not care about that, but the tenets of the Church are the whole reason why it exists to begin with. How are they supposed to preach against "sinful" behavior on Sunday then hand out babies the rest of the week to gay people? I would imagine they would not want to consider unmarried straight couples either. This law forces them to. It's heavy handed, overly broad, dismissive of their concerns and simply wrong. I read your threads, but I just found your answer to Hbox somewhat silly. Based on your response of "fine", I think you agree <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" />. I think I should be clear when I say that I am not condemning the church for the stance they are taking because
at least its consistent with their public views on the topic of gay
couples. However, my stance is that adoption guidelines should be completely secular, not faith based. Discrimination based on someones "faith" is wrong and
shouldnt be at play at determining who is suitable to be parent. So the
law is correct in what it is doing. No agency should be running adoptions and discriminate based only on a lifestyle that they disagree with. Rather the adoption guidelines should establish what is a suitable parent and all agencies involved should play by those rules. "How are they supposed to preach against "sinful" behavior on Sunday then hand out babies the rest of the week to gay people? ". Maybe if the church would focus on the children and the good their services provide for them, perhaps they can find it in their heart to do the right thing. . I'm curious, does the Catholic church only give babies to Catholic parents? They better, because if not then they are giving babies to sinners already so whats the big deal? <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/tongue.gif" /> Furthermore, do you even need to be married? What if Monty Burns wants to adopt? He can't because he's not married? If you aren't married, does the Catholic church ask if you are gay? <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wacko.gif" /> 

This message was edited by TheRealEddie on 3-13-06 @ 10:28 PM

Death Metal Moe

03-13-2006, 06:30 PM

The Real Eddie hit it on the head here.I think all that happened here was they broke up a "Members Only" adoption ring that was leaning towards Catholic homes.

HBox

03-13-2006, 06:35 PM

Which completely dismisses concerns regarding their faith. And if they can't back up those concerns with some facts, THEN THEY SHOULD DISMISS THEM. 

This message was edited by HBox on 3-13-06 @ 10:35 PM

Bulldogcakes

03-14-2006, 04:36 PM

I'm curious, does the Catholic church only give babies to Catholic parents?  No. They help all people based on need, not religious affiliation. Unlike many other religions.  And if they can't back up those concerns with some facts, THEN THEY SHOULD DISMISS THEM.  Your way or the highway, right H-Box? Congrats, the city loses a service because idealogues like you cant tolerate that everyone doesn't think like you do. 

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 3-14-06 @ 8:52 PM

TheMojoPin

03-14-2006, 08:07 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote:    I'm curious, does the Catholic church only give babies to Catholic parents?  No. They help all people based on need, not religious affiliation. Unlike many other religions. Except gay people.

TheRealEddie

03-14-2006, 08:22 PM

The funny thing about this thread is watching BDC's and Hbox's avatars jiggle while they debate. Good stuff <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/thumbup.gif" /> 

This message was edited by TheRealEddie on 3-15-06 @ 12:22 AM

HBox

03-14-2006, 08:59 PM

Your way or the highway, right H-Box? Congrats,
the city loses a service because idealogues like you cant tolerate that
everyone doesn't think like you do.If they want to put forth an argument as to why gay couples should be excluded that goes beyond what is written in the Bible, they're welcome to. And if they did, it should certainly be considered. This isn't about the Catholic Church, this is about helping children. And I could give two rats shits how they explain on Sundays why they allow gay couples to adopt. That's no reason to allow them to discriminate at will.

TheRealEddie

03-15-2006, 02:22 PM

Red state update: <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0315/p02s02-ussc.html" target="_self">Several states weigh ban on gay adoptions</a>

Death Metal Moe

03-15-2006, 05:19 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  religions. Your way or the highway, right H-Box? Congrats, the city loses a service because idealogues like you cant tolerate that everyone doesn't think like you do. You're right on that part BDG.  We all don't think the same way.Your religion hates gay people based on your imaginary God's book of fables.  Your religion thinks it's the only right one, just the the others do.  It's that "Holier than thou" idea that creates all the hate we deal with today.