Gay Lobby Set to Shut Down U.K. Adoption Agencies
January 27, 2007 · By Aaron Unruh
The U.K. government is currently in the process of forcing Catholic adoption agencies to allow same-sex couples to adopt. The strong-armed move will almost certainly lead to the closing down of those agencies, which are currently responsible for roughly a quarter of the UK’s adoptions. But what’s the future of a few little brats when the rights of gay couples are at stake?
Archbishop Peter Smith outlines the sensibility of the current arrangement:
We recognise that the law allows same-sex couples to be adoptive parents. If a gay couple comes to one of our agencies we refer them on to another who can help. But we want to be able to continue our work according to our moral teaching.
Despite the current uproar, we hope a sensible deal can still be worked out with the Government.
If a compromise is reached, nobody suffers — gay couples can still adopt, and the excellent work of our agencies can continue.
Smith’s debating partner, Deidre Sanders, responds with the typical liberal boilerplate:
“…a raft-load of homophobic prejudice is being floated under the pretext of being about child welfare…We cannot choose our sexuality, it’s a deep-seated part of our nature, and it’s nonsense to think that a gay couple will “turn” a child gay. After all, the vast majority of gay people have heterosexual parents….For Roman Catholics, however, this isn’t about practical arguments. It’s about sin.”
And on and on it goes.
Peter Smith’s message is, admittedly, reasonable. That is, until one looks beyond the walls of his church.
For you law and order types, I might ask you to consider that the law is… well… the law. In the absence of law there is chaos.
I might point out studies like the one below, that illustrate concrete scientific, expert consensus that there’s nothing wrong with it from the perspective of child development and well being:
http://pediatrics.aappublicati...../118/1/349
Then I might ask you to consider the scenario if the agency had a moral objection to inter-racial or black couples, as opposed to same sex.
Finally, in the vein of Children’s well being, I might politely point out the Catholic Church’s track record regarding child…er… intimacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....buse_cases
In other words, wouldn’t it make more sense to not resist adoption of children to same-sex couples because:
- It’s the law
- Experts know there’s no impact to child well-being
- The position against is demonstratively discriminatory
- The well being of the child is better served being placed in a loving home rather than at an adoption agency
The alternative is simply the refusal to place the interests of the children (and the law) before their own religious beliefs (or fetishes?). So who are they serving, exactly?
But after your train-wreck post regarding the “science” of same sex parenting, and a similar gory pile-up with the Tim Horton/Native joke, I humbly submit that pointing all that out would be lost on you.
As you were.
It may be a wrong approach but I would enjoy very much if the Catholic Church said “you want it ? You got it” and closed. Effective immediately. Did something else with their money that would benefit their religion and standing . I cannot see how serving as an adoption agency they are benefiting the Church, it’s congregations…unless it is possible all those adopted children are somehow magically going to become Catholics…Oh wait. Are they steering the whelps into Catholic households maybe ? hmmm. Maybe there is some currency to be gained, and of course “gay” Catholics are a non starter because they cannot belong anyway ..so therefore giving adopted children to Gays is a zero sum game for the church’s membership, which probably with adoptions and all is only a slim margin of success anyway, like 1 kid in a thousand maybe grows up Catholic? If they adopt out to gays, that’d become .73721 kid in a thousand . OK I see a rationale now.
But I’d close anyway, just to tell Socialist Brits to go commit an anatomical impossibility with themselves..unless of course they’re gay.
What about Muslim rights?
Scott, you speak of sexual orientation like it is a verifiable fact of every individual.
This is not true! Sexual orientation is not like race or sex primarily because human beings are intelligent; they are what they choose to become.
The dogma of sexual orientation is really quite evil once you remove it from the confines of psychology. Applying it to everyone nullifies moral culpability for sexual desires and, to that end, is dehumanizing.
To be human is to be moral! To be human is to make choices to do one thing or another in contingent circumstance and face the consequences. It is the struggle of moral life that give human life dignity and any coherent meaning whatsoever.
Unfortunately, sexual orientation is not the only other stupid inner-worldly religion attracting many secular adherents these days. Most popular is the uncritical peddling of equality and tolerance as AN ABSOLUTE HUMAN GOOD. They are not!
To be an intelligent human being, making choices freely, is to discriminate between choices based on some orientation to the summum bonum (ultimate good). The moral culpability of our choices demands good judgement and intolerance. And God help us when the summum bonum of our choices is diminished to “sexual orientation,” “tolerance” and “equality!”
The case here in question is a classic example of one religious group, the new humanism of sexual orientation, equality and tolerance, trying to suppress traditional Christianity. Unfortunately for the new humanism, unlike Christianity, their dogma offers nothing more than cheap lies that will eventually unravel. These dogmas of sexual orientation, equality and tolerance, in present form, don’t have the staying power for 2000 years of civilization! For Christians, the summum bonum remains love of God THEN neighbour, not the other way around.
The Catholics are entitled to their principle defence of adopting solely to married couples. Obviously, a married man and woman can offered balanced exposure to each sex, providing both a father and a mother. This remains a reasonable standard of judgement in adopting out children.
Adoption agencies spend their entire time and effort performing discrimination based on their view of what is best for the children. That may include income, criminal records, psychological records and who knows what else. That’s all well and good, the welfare of the children should absolutely be their main concern.
So should government have any say in what is on their list of checks? Absolutely. Should they get an exemption from that list if they don’t like one of the government criteria? Absolutely not. What is in the best interests of the child does not change because it is a catholic person who is making the decision, and suggesting that it should is putting that person’s interests ahead of those of the child.
The child is what matters most, and if people who work in Catholic agencies can’t get over themselves and see that, then they shouldn’t be doing that job in the first place.
The dogma of sexual orientation is really quite evil once you remove it from the confines of psychology.
Retard.
Wow. It really doesn’t take much to bait Canadian Cynic, does it?
[...] GAY LOBBY Set to Shut Down U.K. Adoption Agencies; more reactions to the adoption row … (thepolitic, [...]
Retard?
Fred, how discriminatory and intolerant of you!
It really doesn’t take much to bait Canadian Cynic, does it?
Well, your concerns are trivial, that is true.
“Well, your concerns are trivial, that is true.”
Not giving an inch, are you?
===================================
“The alternative is simply the refusal to place the interests of the children (and the law) before their own religious beliefs (or fetishes?). So who are they serving, exactly?”
Scott, don’t you have positions of conscience that you would never compromise on? It’s hard to imagine anyone who doesn’t other than the 100% amoral types. Assuming that you do, then you really can’t deny the validity of issues of conscience to other people. So despite your comment about the scandalous RC homosexual issues within their priesthood, the RC Church has every right to act upon their own beliefs. If they are not allowed that freedom, then it would be an act of conscience to shut down their agencies rather than put children into inappropriate homes -which is precisely what the diocese of Massachussetts has done.
But…… fetishes…..?? You’ve got to be kidding
“Well, your concerns are trivial…”
And apparently of great interest to you and your pathetic link-baiting patron.
Do you and me a favour and get lost, troll.
Bill, of course they have a right to act on their own beliefs, even if they are based purely on faith in a mythological text rather than in reality and science. Thank God for that, too. That’s freedom!
But children are not a commodity the RCC can trade in.
Children without parents are wards of the state. An agency acting to assist in the placement of these children would naturally act at the pleasure of the state.
Similarly, Mr. Freeman’s libertarian take on the matter fails to consider this simple and indisputable fact, rendering choice - vis a vis whether sexual orientation is really sexual preference - inconsequent.
I never consciously made a choice regarding my hetrosexulaity, did any of you? I remember first noticing Colleen Richards with her short shorts and budding breasts in grade 7 gym class. Oh boy. I may have “liked” girls before that moment, but from that moment on I knew there was a lot more to it than that.
Perhaps some of you picked up pamphlets for both teams, maybe test drove both, drafted some pro/con lists before you decided whether you were a pitcher or catcher. Good for you. It’s irrelevant to this discussion, however.
Silly people.
Oh, and Bill. I was referring the RCC history of rampant pedophilia, the most egregious of acts, suffered by countless children at the hands of countless RCs.
And at the hands of lots and lots of people who, amazing enough, are not Roman Catholics.
Silly person.
Talk about exageration…
Greg illustrates that denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.
Also, why is Aaron such a whiny baby?
“purely on faith in a mythological text rather than in reality and science”
Scott should not speak on matter he does not understand.
“Children without parents are wards of the state. An agency acting to assist in the placement of these children would naturally act at the pleasure of the state.
Similarly, Mr. Freeman’s libertarian take on the matter fails to consider this simple and indisputable fact, rendering choice - vis a vis whether sexual orientation is really sexual preference - inconsequent.”
So what? The Catholic Church is doing a great service for the state here. As I understand, the RCC hands 1/3 of all hard-to-place adoptions in the UK.
Why would the state want to jeopardize this?
Could it be that the levers of power are worked against the RCC, to the detriment of the interests of the state, solely because those who work the levers find it offends their own religion? This religion being the reckless creed that I labelled new humanism: sexual orientation, equality and tolerance.
As for your point on sexual preference v. sexual orientation:
“I never consciously made a choice regarding my hetrosexulaity, did any of you? I remember first noticing Colleen Richards with her short shorts and budding breasts in grade 7 gym class. Oh boy. I may have “liked” girls before that moment, but from that moment on I knew there was a lot more to it than that.”
So what? Does anybody? We all know an attractive member of the opposite sex when we see one; unless, of course, you’re pathologically fixated on your own sexual hang-ups.
“Perhaps some of you picked up pamphlets for both teams, maybe test drove both, drafted some pro/con lists before you decided whether you were a pitcher or catcher. Good for you. It’s irrelevant to this discussion, however.”
What are you talking about? Women are women. Men are men. We’re not talking androgynous Romulans here. Get with it!
People who give the experience of sexual desire pride of place in existential significance and fanatically religious importance, yet divorced of any appreciation for what it means to live a Good life, are creeps!
Morally speaking, think about why any of us are capable of saying paedophilia is evil. It has nothing to do with a social contract!
To be human is to be moral. The RCC has good reason to adhere to the principles that it does regarding gay adoption.
“People who give the experience of sexual desire pride of place in existential significance and fanatically religious importance, yet divorced of any appreciation for what it means to live a Good life, are creeps!”
No no, they’re “fabulous.”
To say pedophilia is rampant in the history of the RCC is an exaggeration, a massive exaggeration.
How can anyone take what you say seriously if you’re going to warp facts to fit your agenda?
If you’re going to make a statement as stupid as that, at least try to justify it with some facts - otherwise you end up looking like an troll.
You just can’t make this stuff up.
This site, quite literally, should be required reading for all people in Canada.
“This site, quite literally, should be required reading for all people in Canada.”
Finally!, Scott and I agree on something!
As long as you promise to not dilute or soften any of the opinion here Aaron, I pledge to drive as much traffic as possible.
Thanks,
S
Not to be snide, but where are you sending us traffic from? Do you have a blog? If so, why not include it when you comment here?
I don’t have a blog currently, no. I’m also not sending you any traffic at the moment, although their are blogs I visit that are.
I’m part of a group that is currently researching market scope and raising funds to complete an impact assessment of organized initiatives centered around increasing public awareness and knowledge of ideological clusters, their influence, and alignment with Canadian political parties.
So you’re thinking about starting a blog ;)
LOL, indeed!
Actually were researching methods of connecting people with the “organic” value and belief systems as they relate within the political arena. An area of obvious focus would be blogs.
A partial iteration could be an aggregation of sources that fall under both micro and macro vertical topics.
Agenda driven, however.
Interesting, I’d like to hear more - I studied online political campaigns in my Masters thesis and I consult on web development projects (commerical and non-profit).
I’m currently working on just such a service.
Nothing wrong with that. I’m always suspicious of anyone who says they don’t have an agenda ;)
Contact me if your interested in discussing this topic further,
greg@mediablitz.ca
That’s great! Thanks Greg. It’d be interesting to compare notes.
Once upon a time progressives had some weird idea about keeping the state out of the churches. What happened to that?
You mean the church out of the state. Ya, we like that idea.
Adoption isn’t “in” the church. As already stated, the children are wards of the state, not the church.
Applaud their work, so long as it’s within the law.
It’s rather simple.
No, I mean state out of churches. Church out of state simply means the church isn’t the state.
[...] I guess we just need to wait for him to denigrate faggots to have a clean sweep and … ah, there we go.AFTERSNARK: You can, I hope, appreciate the delicious irony of Canada’s wingnuts defending the [...]