Debate topic:Catholic adoption agencies & same sex adopters

BrendanMG

Hi folks,

Just throwing this one out for some feedback. I have an argument to uphold in a uni debate, and to be honest, it's a difficult one, so I'm hoping that somebody may be able to help me with grounds of defence!

Topic: Should adoption agencies from religious backgrounds be exempt from equalities legislation? Do panel members agree with the contention that some agencies should be permitted to withdraw services to lesbian & gay potential adopters based on moral & religious grounds?

I have to take the Catholic Churches' stance on it. I have a few arguments but they're not hugely strong. Equality laws passed in the UK in 2007 make it discriminatory to rule out couples because they are homosexual.

Can anyone think of any strong arguments that I could work with?

All comments greatly appreciated!

Jester Minute

We see the Catholic agencies had to close in the UK.

But basically, there are couple main issues:

Children are best brought up with a father and mother. There is evidence and common sense that this works. Check out the NARTH website and I am sure there are other resources online.

Secondly, you can't make people go against their conscience and religious convictions. If I think it is wrong to leave a child with two gays, then you can't force me to do it. OK, so you can force me out of business or jail me. So be it.

The important thing to remember is this:

A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it, and the truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.

Jester Minute

I should emphasise that there is a strong case using psychology against the practise, so the Christian's argument is not based solely on moral and religious principles, but also science and conscience. If I know, using psychology, what is best for the child, can you compel me to do something which I know will damage the child? That is the question.

Festus

I would urge caution on using psychological evidence as it is very bad science. There are also as many pshychology studies that would support one view over another and vice versa.

You know all those psychology experiments, all carried out in western universities, where many of the subjects tend to be undergraduates and a large subset of them tend to be psychology undergrads? Well that tends to skew things.

Experiments that draw on the wider non-university, non-graduate population are few and far between and experiments conducted in other non-Western parts of the world tend to produce very different results.
The problem is in this part of the world psychologists and their favourite subjects tend to be WEIRD. Thats western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic. Not everyone in the world is WEIRD hence the problem with psychology, psychologists and their experiments. (Behavioural and Brain Sciences, vol 33, p61 if you need a source)
By all means use suitable psychological material but remember that anything coming from the opposition can be hit with the WEIRD rebuttal. As can yours.

That said there are other examples you can bring in. The animal kingdom is thank God protected from psychologists to a large extent, primarily because they can't get a grant. They also unfortunately have no agencies to help them so when if comes to gay hippos trying to adopt a calf there are problems. Basically they aren't getting one so their choice, if they want offspring, is to go the hetero route. They also have difficulties with masturbation and using turkey basters so their alternative options are somewhat limited. Monkeys and apes may do better with the latter but so far it has not been seen in the wild, even in those communities with ready access to syringes.

Another route of attack is to ask why gay couples want to adopt. Statistically their rate of divorce in those areas where gay marriage is permitted excedes that of heterosexual couples in Norway and Sweden anyway. In a debate you don't have to mention stats that do you no favours so pick and choose carefully. So are they adopting as a way of making their relationship stronger.

It would also be worth checking out the rules for unmarried heterosexual couples who wish to adopt. What do they have to prove before they are accepted into the program. Even are they acceptable if they are unmarried. Then question if the rules for gay couples are equitable. Do they have to be married? For how long? Have they been trying to get pregnant? For how long? Do they have a doctors certificate that states why they cannot get pregnant?

Best of luck and I pray the Holy Spirit will guide you to a successful debate.

PDN

If a government wishes to provide all social services by itself then it is free to do so. However, many goverments choose to allow NGOs and charities to assist them in this process (often, as in our own State's case, because the government is incapable of doing the job efficiently themselves).

It is unreasonable for the state to say to a charity/NGO "We expect you to help us fulfill our obligations as a State, but demand that you violate your own principles to do so."

Therefore a sensible government will allow NGOs and charities to play a part (but not to have a monopoly) in providing social services such as caring for the homeless, providing adoption agencies etc. It will also allow such NGOs and charities to abstain from any actions that they would deem to be unethical. Thus, for example, Quaker charities are at work in many countries but, because of their strong pacifist convictions, refuse to participate in nany programmes that might, directly or indirectly, promote warfare, encourage recruitment into the military, or receive funding from arms dealers.

In such a multi-faceted scenario no-one is being denied a service, since gay couples can always go to another adoption agency that will be willing to give a kid to two individuals who wish to avoid nature's way of having children.

Festus

I guess you could also throw in that agencies that facililitate children for gay and lesbian couples are denying that child a home with a heterosexual couple.
Given that the child is here due to heterosexual action the first choice of a home should be with heterosexuals and only after all heterosexual avenues have been exhausted should the child be sent to another country where there are other heterosexual couples willing to take the child.

You need a lot of humour to score points in a uni debate

But you can also play hardball

The grounds are not just moral or religious but also natural.
You can also play up the inequality that is inherent in the fact that lesbians can if they choose get pregnant but gay men cannot. From here you can move to the inequality exposed by organisations such as Fathers for Justice whereby the law provides women with the legal right to deny fathers access to their children. Will the same concepts be employed by gay or lesbian adoptees if they break up.
Plays like this can be used to expose equality legislation for what it is. Inequitable and driven by ulteriour agendas. Therefore agencies that believe in true equality have no place being bound by inequitable equalities legislation and are therfore exempt.
Catholic agencies would believe in the equal right of the child to be brought up in an environment that is equal to that of child born to married heterosexual couples. The child has a right to a life that is equal to his or her peers.

Genghiz Cohen

You have to prove there is an actual risk to the child if s/he is adopted by homosexual couples (Nobel Prize territory?).
Any other reason you give can only be put down to personal prejudices and discrimination and will be torn apart as such.

You have to show why a homosexual couple are less suited than hetro couples and singles and even if they are less suited you have to show they are a danger to the child's well being and happiness.

I think you might have the uphill battle. The opposition can pretty much sit back and shout "Prove it!".

Currently it seems that to adopt as a couple and share rights to the child, the couple must be married.
One of the partners can adopt though.

antiskeptic

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

You have to prove there is an actual risk to the child if s/he is adopted by homosexual couples

Given the tendency for adoption agencies to be child-centric rather than adopters-rights-centric, wouldn't it be more valid to request a demonstration that a relatively new and novel form of family unit would be as effective a unit as the traditional one?

Genghiz Cohen

antiskeptic wrote: »

Given the tendency for adoption agencies to be child-centric rather than adopters-rights-centric, wouldn't it be more valid to request a demonstration that a relatively new and novel form of family unit would be as effective a unit as the traditional one?

Don't know, maybe.

If you start like that you are basically saying that homosexual couples ARE unfit for raising a child.

I don't think that because someone is gay that they would be unsuitable though and I'm not sure the judges/audience would either. That's why I would give the benefit of the doubt and argue the other way.

Jester Minute

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Don't know, maybe.

If you start like that you are basically saying that homosexual couples ARE unfit for raising a child.

I don't think that because someone is gay that they would be unsuitable though and I'm not sure the judges/audience would either. That's why I would give the benefit of the doubt and argue the other way.

Children need the father and mother in order to develop properly. Life is hard enough without throwing extra obstacles in the path of children. The truth is not PC. But the truth is the truth. Children brought up with homosexual couples are going to be disadvantaged from the start, from the name-calling at school to the damage done to their psychosexual development. It is very sad that this is now an issue.

Ellian

Will you also have to defend that hypothetical decision to withdraw the chance of a home to a child? In effect defend the position that you are potentially saying it is better for a child to be raised in an orphanage or similar institution than it is to be raised by a gay couple in a family unit (albeit not a traditional family unit) If so, you might want to try and get some cover on that flank as well

Festus

Ellian wrote: »

Will you also have to defend that hypothetical decision to withdraw the chance of a home to a child? In effect defend the position that you are potentially saying it is better for a child to be raised in an orphanage or similar institution than it is to be raised by a gay couple in a family unit (albeit not a traditional family unit) If so, you might want to try and get some cover on that flank as well

This presupposes that there are not enough hetero couples looking to adopt therefore if you refuse to indulge the gay couples then the child has to go to an orphange. Not a tenable argument in the real world where the reality is that there are more couples looking to adopt than there are children available.

Of course if abortion was illegal then there may be a glut of children

Ellian

Festus wrote: »

This presupposes that there are not enough hetero couples looking to adopt therefore if you refuse to indulge the gay couples then the child has to go to an orphange. Not a tenable argument in the real world where the reality is that there are more couples looking to adopt than there are children available.

Of course if abortion was illegal then there may be a glut of children

Well I was only playing the devils advocate but in that vein, I would ask why are there any children in orphanages or similar institutes at all? If there are more suitable hetero couples looking to adopt that potential adoptees?

Genghiz Cohen

Jester Minute wrote: »

Children need the father and mother in order to develop properly. Life is hard enough without throwing extra obstacles in the path of children. The truth is not PC. But the truth is the truth. Children brought up with homosexual couples are going to be disadvantaged from the start, from the name-calling at school to the damage done to their psychosexual development. It is very sad that this is now an issue.

A quick google turned up zeez:
CNN
It shows both sides of the coin.

People who grew up happy.
People who grew up sad.

I don't think that because someone has straight parents that they will be immune to teasing.

I don't think that people with either type of parents are guaranteed anything in the way of happiness. That's life.
Children get teased, children turn out gay and are either ashamed/comfortable.

It happens regardless of parents orientation.

Genghiz Cohen

Festus wrote: »

This presupposes that there are not enough hetero couples looking to adopt therefore if you refuse to indulge the gay couples then the child has to go to an orphange. Not a tenable argument in the real world where the reality is that there are more couples looking to adopt than there are children available.

Of course if abortion was illegal then there may be a glut of children

What if a homo couple were in a far better position to provide for a child?

Festus

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

What if a homo couple were in a far better position to provide for a child?

as I understand it there is a means test to ensure adoptees can provide adequately

Jester Minute

Ellian wrote: »

Well I was only playing the devils advocate but in that vein, I would ask why are there any children in orphanages or similar institutes at all? If there are more suitable hetero couples looking to adopt that potential adoptees?

There are plenty of natural couples looking to adopt. I know a married couple wanted to adopt in NI but had to go to mainland UK cos there was difficulty doing it here. Lots of hoops and suchlike.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

A quick google turned up zeez:
CNN
It shows both sides of the coin.

People who grew up happy.
People who grew up sad.

I don't think that people with either type of parents are guaranteed anything in the way of happiness. That's life.
Children get teased, children turn out gay and are either ashamed/comfortable.

It happens regardless of parents orientation.

Kids placed with homosexual couple are immediately disadvantaged in many important respects.

Kids placed with homosexuals are going to have problems with their psychosexual development, especially if they are placed as babies or infants. kids need the father and mother to develop normally. This is proven science as well as basic common sense.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

What if a homo couple were in a far better position to provide for a child?

Material provision is only one requirement of a child. Lots of kids have everything materially but a father and mother who spend no time with the kids.

Genghiz Cohen

Festus wrote: »

as I understand it there is a means test to ensure adoptees can provide adequately

Adequately is not completely.
If couple A could ensure the child would never want for anything ever and couple B couldn't but were comfortable, why is there even a question of who should get custody?

Genghiz Cohen

Jester Minute wrote: »

Kids placed with homosexuals are going to have problems with their psychosexual development, especially if they are placed as babies or infants. kids need the father and mother to develop normally. This is proven science as well as basic common sense.

Some of the people in that article would disagree. Are they wrong?

Festus

Ellian wrote: »

Well I was only playing the devils advocate but in that vein, I would ask why are there any children in orphanages or similar institutes at all? If there are more suitable hetero couples looking to adopt that potential adoptees?

Devils egg nog is fine. What kind of children are in orphanages? In general they are too difficult to place in an adoptive home through age or whatever. Most couples want nice cute bouncy fresh babies, not unruly damaged teenages or urchins.

Zombrex

Jester Minute wrote: »

Kids placed with homosexuals are going to have problems with their psychosexual development, especially if they are placed as babies or infants. kids need the father and mother to develop normally. This is proven science as well as basic common sense.

There are enough homosexual couples with kids to study this (70,000 kids are being raised by same sex couples in California alone).

And no, the science doesn't support your assertions.

In fact the only significant area of difference is that children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to be tolerant of other groups and minorities than those raised by heterosexual parents, and are less likely to be bullies.

On a wide range of issues, from gender confusion to depression to bullying, there has been no significant correlation between same sex couples and a rise in these problems.

This was the conclusion of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health:

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349

Perhaps you should stick to untestable religious proclamations

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

And no, the science doesn't support your assertions.

oh yes it does

to counter

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/may/05053106.html

excerpt:

The report contests that the majority of the studies carried out which have concluded in favour of same-sex parenthood betray an egregious lack of scientific rigour. Most of the studies show a strong bias to one side.
To prove this the report analyzes the nature of the individuals who have been responsible for the various studies carried out thus far, demonstrating that the vast majority are either homosexuals themselves, or active in the gay-rights movement. Into this category fall all six of the six most prominent psychologists of the American Psychological Association, which, unsurprisingly is one of the organizations most strongly and vocally in favour of homosexual adoption.
In compiling and comparing the available data from these studies, as well as more objective studies, the team of first-class psychologists and sociologists which penned the HazteOir report have noted prominent and disturbing trends.
Among children raised by same-sex couples, the report notes a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, an increase in mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, STD’s, and homosexual behaviour, amongst others. Furthermore, the report shows that statistics have brought to light the fact that same-sex relationships betray a much higher instance of separation and break-up than heterosexual relationships, increasing the likelihood that the child will experience familial instability.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

oh yes it does

Are you telling me a report by a right-wing Catholic conservative group disagrees.

Shocking :rolleyes:

Ellian

Festus wrote: »

Devils egg nog is fine. What kind of children are in orphanages? In general they are too difficult to place in an adoptive home through age or whatever. Most couples want nice cute bouncy fresh babies, not unruly damaged teenages or urchins.

OK, so assuming that there was a gay couple who were willing to take some unruly or damaged child that a straight couple were not (which you asserted was not a situatoin that could occur in the real world) I still think OP would need some cover on the argument of keeping the child in an institution is a better position for the child than being adopted by a gay couple - assuming said child had no problem with being raised by a gay couple.

Jester Minute

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you telling me a report by a right-wing Catholic conservative group disagrees.

Shocking :rolleyes:

Are you telling me that a report by a liberal, amoral group like the APA (the same group who removed homosexuality from the DSM for political, not scientific reasons) would disagree?

Shocking :rolleyes:

Festus

Ellian wrote: »

OK, so assuming that there was a gay couple who were willing to take some unruly or damaged child that a straight couple were not (which you asserted was not a situatoin that could occur in the real world) I still think OP would need some cover on the argument of keeping the child in an institution is a better position for the child than being adopted by a gay couple - assuming said child had no problem with being raised by a gay couple.

maybe they could adopt gay and lesbian children. Maybe introduce the arguments regarding genetics, choice, phenotype and cultural influences. Maybe they could adopt the children of dead gays and lesbians - those closet gays and lesbians who married straight people so they could have children and were then killed when their unsuspecting partner discovered the truth, realised they were used and wreaked revenge.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Festus

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

we're talking material for a uni debate. facts are not the issue. making people laugh or think is. What you need is something that can get past the alcohol and cause a reaction.

strobe

Festus wrote: »

......the reality is that there are more couples looking to adopt than there are children available.

Is this true? Does anyone have a reliable link to the numbers? Preferably one, for just Ireland and two, on a global scale. Thanks.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

Given the tendency for adoption agencies to be child-centric rather than adopters-rights-centric, wouldn't it be more valid to request a demonstration that a relatively new and novel form of family unit would be as effective a unit as the traditional one?

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Don't know, maybe.

If you start like that you are basically saying that homosexual couples ARE unfit for raising a child.

I don't think that because someone is gay that they would be unsuitable though and I'm not sure the judges/audience would either. That's why I would give the benefit of the doubt and argue the other way.

Starting like that doesn't say anything about the fitness of homosexual couples to raise a child, it asks something about the fitness of homosexual couples to raise a child.

To say is to suppose. To ask is to suppose nothing.

To ask is to enquire.

To ask is to consider the person desiring to adopt unfit until proven fit - no matter who they are. That is, and must remain, the stance of the adoption authorities. Child-centric.

There is no need to query a male/female family unit in the area of the male/femaleness of that unit - to question the natural* order is a nonsense. No so in the case with unnatural situations such as single parent units, homosexual units, polygamous family units.


(*by natural I refer only to parental units, and am not commenting on the naturalness or otherwise of homosexuals)

Genghiz Cohen

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no need to query a male/female family unit in the area of the male/femaleness of that unit - to question the natural* order is a nonsense. No so in the case with unnatural situations such as single parent units, homosexual units, polygamous family units.


(*by natural I refer only to parental units, and am not commenting on the naturalness or otherwise of homosexuals)

I don't know, I've met some pretty butch women. :pac:

Festus

strobe wrote: »

Is this true? Does anyone have a reliable link to the numbers? Preferably one, for just Ireland and two, on a global scale. Thanks.

Not a statstic as such though someone else may be able to locate them,

Look up the Hague Convention on Intercountry adoption and ask why people try to adopt from other countries. Also ask why other coutries are willing be behave as "baby factories" if you will.

form here - http://www.adopt.com/ireland/index.html

NOTE: Very few children are placed for adoption in Ireland each year. As there are far more couples wanting to adopt than there are children available for adoption, not every couple who applies to an adoption agency and successfully passes the assessment will be successful in locating a child to adopt in Ireland.

Zombrex

Jester Minute wrote: »

Are you telling me that a report by a liberal, amoral group like the APA (the same group who removed homosexuality from the DSM for political, not scientific reasons) would disagree?

Shocking :rolleyes:

As you say the group is amoral, ie they look at the science not questions of whether the conclusions are morally right or wrong.

HazteOir on the other hand is a moral group, who already decided that homosexual couples having children is immoral.

Science doesn't support the conclusion that it is mentally damaging. This says nothing as to whether it is moral or not.

And I think you are confusing the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) with the American Psychological Association (APA)

While the only people who seem to think the APA are bias are religious groups opposed to homosexuality, even if they were bias this says little as to the bias of the AAP. Unless people want to start saying that all groups that don't find damaging effects of homosexual must be bias.

Seaneh

strobe wrote: »

Is this true? Does anyone have a reliable link to the numbers? Preferably one, for just Ireland and two, on a global scale. Thanks.

It's true of ireland, not on a world scale.
My Aunt and Uncle spent 8 years waiting for a child in Ireland, passed all the vetting etc then put on a waiting list, from being put on the waiting list to getting my cousin it was 8 years. Over 9 years total from first aplication to the day they brought my cousin home.

Took just over a year to adopt from Russia when they adopted their other daughter.

Festus

Jester Minute wrote: »

Are you telling me that a report by a liberal, amoral group like the APA (the same group who removed homosexuality from the DSM for political, not scientific reasons) would disagree?

Shocking :rolleyes:

A thread may be required to discuss whether the APA can be considered scientific.

Given that the P stands for psychology and according to New Scientist recently most western psychologists are WEIRDLy skewed there is sufficient evidence to argue that the APA are far from scientific, of if so they come under the auspices of bad science and can be right seen in the same light as the likes of Gillian McKeith.

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

It's true of ireland, not on a world scale.

True of America as well.

Just a guess, but I would imagine it is true in countries that are starting to have people waiting to have kids probably due to careers, eg a 35-40 year old woman realizing she now can't have a baby and looking to adopt.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

A thread may be required to discuss whether the APA can be considered scientific.

Given that the P stands for psychology and according to New Scientist recently most western psychologists are WEIRDLy skewed there is sufficient evidence to argue that the APA are far from scientific, of if so they come under the auspices of bad science and can be right seen in the same light as the likes of Gillian McKeith.

None of which is relevant to the American Association of Pediatrics though, agreed?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

True of America as well.

Just a guess, but I would imagine it is true in countries that are starting to have people waiting to have kids probably due to careers, eg a 35-40 year old woman realizing she now can't have a baby and looking to adopt.

Generally prosperous countries have more would-be adopters than available children. The opposite is true in poorer countries.

I remember a few years ago flying home from China, and the Beijing-Paris flight was full of American and English couples carrying Chinese babies. Also, every time I have to queue at the Russian embassy in Dublin for a visa, there are always prospective parents jumping through expensive bureaucratic hoops in order to adopt Russian children.

antiskeptic

BrendanMG wrote: »

Topic: Should adoption agencies from religious backgrounds be exempt from equalities legislation? Do panel members agree with the contention that some agencies should be permitted to withdraw services to lesbian & gay potential adopters based on moral & religious grounds?

I have to take the Catholic Churches' stance on it. I have a few arguments but they're not hugely strong. Equality laws passed in the UK in 2007 make it discriminatory to rule out couples because they are homosexual.

Can anyone think of any strong arguments that I could work with?

All comments greatly appreciated!

The following point comes from a child-welfare angle rather than strict moral/religious but I suppose you could work it into the moral framework given that anything that would harm the welfare of a child could be seen as an immoral thing.

There exists in society still, a significant amount of negative stigma around the issue of homosexuality. It follows that children raised in homosexual family units are going to be exposed to a stigmatisation that arises from having homosexual parents.

In a country where there are more people wanting to adopt than there are children to adopt and if taking a child-centric rather than a homosexual-rights-centric approach, then homosexuals should be precluded from adopting on the above basis.

PDN

antiskeptic wrote: »

if taking a child-centric rather than a homosexual-rights-centric approach,

This phrase, for me, is the crux of the matter.

Being able to adopt a child is not a basic human right. I have little sympathy for those who are unwilling to do what most people do to have children, yet demand, "But I must be allowed to adopt a child - it's my right!"

In adoption the rights and the welfare of the child should be the only thing that matters.

Festus

BrendanMG wrote: »

Equality laws passed in the UK in 2007 make it discriminatory to rule out couples because they are homosexual.

Can anyone think of any strong arguments that I could work with?

All comments greatly appreciated!

You could effectively argue that the equality law is facilitating a form of discrimination against a religious minority that is bordering on oppression. Catholics are a minority in the UK and the equality law is in this case impinging upon their religious freedoms and their right to their theological ethos.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

You could effectively argue that the equality law is facilitating a form of discrimination against a religious minority that is bordering on oppression. Catholics are a minority in the UK and the equality law is in this case impinging upon their religious freedoms and their right to their theological ethos.

Logically that argument is a dud. You might as well argue that equality law discriminates against white supremacists who are a minority in the UK and that the equality law impinges upon their freedom to hate black people.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

Logically that argument is a dud. You might as well argue that equality law discriminates against white supremacists who are a minority in the UK and that the equality law impinges upon their freedom to hate black people.

Possibly but one could also argue that a Catholic adoption agency should be able to limit itself to only providing services to Catholic couples. If that couple happens to be gay there should be no issue if they are Catholics in good standing.

Genghiz Cohen

Festus wrote: »

Possibly but one could also argue that a Catholic adoption agency should be able to limit itself to only providing services to Catholic couples. If that couple happens to be gay there should be no issue if they are Catholics in good standing.

Wouldn't that be religion based discrimination?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Possibly but one could also argue that a Catholic adoption agency should be able to limit itself to only providing services to Catholic couples. If that couple happens to be gay there should be no issue if they are Catholics in good standing.

You shouldn't discriminate against my right to discriminate?

That is just turtles all the way down.

Anyway I agree with PDN. Adoption is not a right. The best interests of the child needs to be taken into account, and just because gay couples want to adopt doesn't make it ok or mean it isn't going to damaging to the child.

Having said that the State being secular needs to go on the facts, not the view of any particular religion.

At the moment there seems to be very limited evidence that being placed in a home with a gay couple will have any significant negative effect on the child over any other home (I mean the child could get unlucky and have parents that beat him but that is true of heterosexual couples).

Festus

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Wouldn't that be religion based discrimination?

and what's wrong with that?

while we're at it why don't we get all those sex based discrimatory public toilets - you know, the ones that discriminate by segregating males and females.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

and what's wrong with that?

You tell us -

Festus wrote: »

You could effectively argue that the equality law is facilitating a form of discrimination against a religious minority that is bordering on oppression.

and what is wrong with that?

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

You tell us -

To my mind there is a difference between a religious organisation discriminating based on religious grounds and a government acting unfairly to enforce secular rules on a religious organisation and being oppressive under the guise of so called "anti discrimination legislation"

Genghiz Cohen

Festus wrote: »

To my mind there is a difference between a religious organisation discriminating based on religious grounds and a government acting unfairly to enforce secular rules on a religious organisation and being oppressive under the guise of so called "anti discrimination legislation"

Equality is so unfair.

Seaneh

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Equality is so unfair.

That's not really the case anyone is arguing.

The case of the catholic agencies in the UK having to shut down is this.

There weren't trying to dictate to other organisations that they couldn't/shouldn't provide their services to gay couples, they were just trying to protect their right to limit their services to people fall under their remit. Forcing them to facilitate homosexual couples and break their own rules was unfair and shouldn't have happened.
Just like the idea of forcing Christian churches to facilitate homosexual weddings is absurd and should never happen.
If Gay couples want to adpot, get married, whatever, they can avail of the services of other organisations, but the idea that Christian/Muslim/whatever organisations should be forced to facilitate that service is retarded.

Genghiz Cohen

Seaneh wrote: »

That's not really the case anyone is arguing.

The case of the catholic agencies in the UK having to shut down is this.

There weren't trying to dictate to other organisations that they couldn't/shouldn't provide their services to gay couples, they were just trying to protect their right to limit their services to people fall under their remit.

That's because they recieved government funding.

Catholic adoption charities are estimated to accept around £10 million from the state each year, mostly from local authorities. That money would cease to flow if agencies chose to ignore gay rights law

Seaneh wrote: »

Just like the idea of forcing Christian churches to facilitate homosexual weddings is absurd and should never happen.
If Gay couples want to adpot, get married, whatever, they can avail of the services of other organisations, but the idea that Christian/Muslim/whatever organisations should be forced to facilitate that service is retarded.

And that would be fine as long as the church kept it nose out of other peoples business and gave up all government funding.