Debate topic:Catholic adoption agencies & same sex adopters

Seaneh

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

That's because they recieved government funding.

Their choices were either take the funding or charge massive fees to the people applying to them. They had no choice but to close and it would be unfair to charge people insane fees for such a service.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

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

So the catholic church should refuse all government funding for the hospitals, schools and hundreds of charitable organisations and close them all in the morning?
That's a smashing idea you have there!

PDN

PDN wrote: »

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!"
.

Indeed, it's also very annoying when it's used as a pro life argument - "think of all those poor couples who don't have children they could adopt yours"
:rolleyes:

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

Their choices were either take the funding or charge massive fees to the people applying to them. They had no choice but to close and it would be unfair to charge people insane fees for such a service.

People can't argue that the government should act in the interests of fairness by allowing Catholic adoption agencies to choose to act in the interests of unfairness (ie discriminate against gays) yet also argue the government should fund them while they do so.

If the government funds Catholic adoption agencies then the government is not acting in the interests of fairness, something one requires in the first place for them not to shut these groups down.

So one loses all moral high ground in arguing that the government shouldn't be unfair and close these Catholic organizations down since they are supporting publicly funded discrimination against homosexuals

If the government is being fair to Catholics and unfair to homosexuals, then it is just arbitrarily picking groups to support and groups to be unfair to. Tomorrow it could be the Catholics instead of the homosexuals, which I imagine you guys don't want.

Seaneh wrote: »

So the catholic church should refuse all government funding for the hospitals, schools and hundreds of charitable organisations and close them all in the morning?

The government should refuse to give any funds to any groups that discriminates against members of the tax paying public.

If the government does give funds to them then they are being unfair, since the public funds are cut off from a one group of society who pay taxes like everyone else.

Don't forget Festus requires a fair government, otherwise the government itself could turn around tomorrow and just close down all the Catholic adoption agencies and there would be no point crying about how unfair this is since people happily watched the government be unfair to those the publicly funded Catholic agents discriminated against.

If one has a government that arbitrarily discriminates against homosexuals one can also have a government that arbitrarily discriminates against Catholics. Which I imagine you don't want.

Genghiz Cohen

Seaneh wrote: »

So the catholic church should refuse all government funding for the hospitals, schools and hundreds of charitable organisations and close them all in the morning?
That's a smashing idea you have there!

Or the obvious other option.
But no, you go ahead and be all dramatic.
/popcorn

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

Indeed, it's also very annoying when it's used as a pro life argument - "think of all those poor couples who don't have children they could adopt yours"
:rolleyes:

If you're going to insert the rolling eyes then I suggest you find one instance where I've ever made such an argument.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

If you're going to insert the rolling eyes then I suggest you find one instance where I've ever made such an argument.

I was agreeing with you and giving another example of that argument

Fanny Cradock

Another misunderstanding courtesy of rolleyes

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Another misunderstanding courtesy of rolleyes

Gotta love those eyes!

Dewdropdeb

To look at it in another light.

Say I'm a young pregnant mother. An adoption agency will usually give me five or six parent profiles. If one of those happen to include a gay couple and I don't pick them to adopt my baby for whatever reason, am I too subject to government edicts? Am I a bigot because I liked a mother/father family better? Where does it end? Shouldn't it be up to the mother? If she feels more comfortable going to a Catholic adoption agency, then she should be allowed to do so. As long as the option is there for it to go either way, I don't even understand why there's an issue?

Gay people would probably be unlikely to even go to a Catholic adoption agency, so why is there a problem? It's just another soapbox issue that's really a non-issue. Anything to get the secular agenda a bit more PR. :rolleyes:

The problem to me is that saying these agencies are discriminatory and forcing them to act against their religious beliefs is also discriminatory. It seems these days people wanting to uphold their values are discriminated against more than any other group.

Dewdropdeb

Dewdropdeb wrote: »

If she feels more comfortable going to a Catholic adoption agency, then she should be allowed to do so.

Sure, but I don't think it should be state sponsored

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

Sure, but I don't think it should be state sponsored

Which is fine if the State is prepared to provide comprehensive adoption services. In that case, the State funds its own services and any NGOs or charities that wish to provide an alternative service do so under their own steam and their own financing. I don't think any reasonable person should have a quarrel with that kind of approach.

The real problems occur when the State does not provide a comprehensive service, expects NGOs and charities to pick up the slack, and then tries to prevent those same NGOs and charities from operating according to their principles and ethics.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

Which is fine if the State is prepared to provide comprehensive adoption services. In that case, the State funds its own services and any NGOs or charities that wish to provide an alternative service do so under their own steam and their own financing. I don't think any reasonable person should have a quarrel with that kind of approach.

The real problems occur when the State does not provide a comprehensive service, expects NGOs and charities to pick up the slack, and then tries to prevent those same NGOs and charities from operating according to their principles and ethics.

Sounds about right to me.

Is there something in the water, I don't usually agree with you :eek:

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

Sounds about right to me.

Is there something in the water, I don't usually agree with you :eek:

Don't worry, it won't last!

I think it's probably that you disagree with my theological views as a Christian, but you agree with my social/cultural views as a anabaptistical advocate of a secular society.