Discrimination ok, if based on religion? what else then?

Bang on the money, nator.A particular view of a dusty text obviously means more to some than the welfare of a child.

Just to butt in - I'm not sure if its fair to assert that the bible is either entirely true or entirely false. Its only a fraction of them (perhaps a sizable one, I don't know) who believe that it is without error. There are bags of sensible human beings who "cherry pick", but this doesn't have to be seen as capricious - its also the product of the traditions of their particular religious community.

It isn't the same at all.Children will torment other children because their parents are gay or because their clothes went out of style last week or because they have a funny haircut. There's always going to be something.There is "so much poverty in the world" partly because the churches are falling down in their responsibility. I don't think you've addressed that point yet. They have a reponsibility to alleviate the destitution of all families, not just dole out the adoptees to the families that manage to prosper on their own.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Understood.But, Don't you think that "cherry picking" the bits you like from a text supposed to be the word of God, undermines the validity of anything contained therein?For instance, the teachings regarding homosexuality and say, shellfish... are in the same book (same page?), that is, Leviticus.Abe:{I did ask if Jesus had ever condemned homosexuality, I have had no response}So if you decide that actually, it's ok to eat shellfish, why should the teaching re: homosexuality hold any sway?Edited by Creavolution, : No reason given.

I hear (read?) what you are saying. I agree of course. I only wanted to make a fine distinction. I piped up because I thought you were making it sound as though a modern Christian treated the bible like it was a menu, and they ordered what they liked from it. Although this might be true in many cases, I disagree. On the whole, I don't think these people are having a bit of what they fancy to please themselves.People like anastasia have recieved their understanding from centuries of Catholic thought. When s/he thinks its common sense to eat cockles but keep gays away from our precious children, she isn't making a judgment to suit herself - she demonstrating that her perception is moulded by Catholic discourse. That's not to say that its any more attractive - but it isn't about her petty wants - its about the Christian discourse on homosexuality that stretches back to Paul.I have a different problem with this whole issue.To be charitable, I'll make the assumption that while there are many people whose objection to homosexuality is largely an infantile response learned in the playground, there are probably some whose attitudes towards gay adoption are on chiefly or wholly on theological grounds. What I don't understand is how this theological case is made, and I haven't really heard it advanced over the past few days. Through their actions, the Archibishops of Canterbury and York seemed to imply that there is an explicit rejection of gay parents somewhere in doctrine (maybe Judges 6:9 "and lo, the gays were denied the chance to adopt, for they were gay, unlike the other, eligible would-be-adopters"), as though their case didn't have to be made. Perhaps I'm missing something but I'd imagine a lot of text in the bible can be interpreted to support gay parents, just as a lot of it can be interpreted to decry them.When did the anti-gay adoption lobby win that textual argument? I wasn't informed.Edited by Tusko, : innocuous stylistic tweakEdited by Tusko, : clarified a sentence

Oh, stop. There is no 'hating'. I am Catholic and I don't hate gays. All I see is hatred coming from others on this board, and no real compromise. Why can't they just send some of the hetero souples over to the Catholic agencies, and have all these desperate for a child homosexuals go to the state agencies? Why act like the church is the only hope for these gay couples? Why discriminate against anyone? There are plenty of ways to satisfy everyone involved.

No, he never even mentioned the word. The Catholic teachings on homosexuality stem from the command 'thou shalt not commit adultery' and are centered on the infinite value and mystery of human reproduction, the respect of the human body, in using it for the purposes which best suit its design, the harmony between a man and a woman and the benefits to children who have good role models of strength and tenderness. It focuses on the gift that couples have in being able to reproduce while others can only dream of the option, and asks that we value this gift of creating life, as the ultimate 'good' that a human can do.I have no hatred of a person who does not use their gifts carefully. But because I put such a high price on the appropriate use of our reproductive rights, I would consider that a homosexual couple, a career fornicator or prostitute, a repeat divorcee, etc, would not be the best candidates for sharing these values and passing them along for future generations. I only ask that people who see beauty in the harmonious flow of life, as it was meant to be, should be allowed to continue to hold these things sacred. I ask that everyone cease in your own hatred, and understand the good that the churches are aiming for, even if you see it as imperfect.I have learned about the value of sexuality in so many ways outside of my faith. This personal experience has strengthened my faith, rather than my faith blindly leading me. I do appreciate the attempts to defend Catholis as subjects of tradition, etc, but I am not a weak little thing that can't see her way out of the trap.There is so much sadness that could be averted with appropriate use of sexuality. Remove one element of the ideal, and you have a misfortune that lasts a life time. If sex is not consensual, if it is undertaken with out the desire for a child, if one or the other parent is not involved with the child's life, if divorce occurs, if cheating occurs, one or more people involved will be deeply violated, scarred, and perhaps dead thru abortion. It is important to strive for the ideal in life, not to settle for less. It does no good to fix a wrong with a wrong.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

You tell us, you are the one advocating that the catholic adoption agencies be allowed to discriminate solely on the basis of a couple being gay.It isn't discrimination to require the catholic agencies to abide by the same laws that all the other agencies have to.TTFN,WK

Extending this logic you must also feel that any couple who has sex for pleasure would also be unsuitable as adoptive parents? (my bold)
Really? so anyone who has sex for pleasure is scarred for life?
I'll bet there's billions of people who would disagree.
that is the most nonesensical assertion I think I have ever seen on these boards.
Abe{do You believe a childless couple, because they cannot have children are therefore not permitted to make love to each other? because no child will be concieved?}Edited by Creavolution, : fixed quotesEdited by Creavolution, : No reason given.

How the hell is it right for xians to say that it is right to close down perfectly good oportunities for children to have a chance at a loving family?You see gheys as not worthy of bringing up kids otherwise you would not have a discriminatory stance on this issue.If you thoughts gheys were good enough to trust with kids this issue would never have come up.You don't want gheys to foster or adopt kids.Your position is SICK and so full of hate that it would see kids pushed from pillar to post rather than see them go to a good home!Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

That fragment puts it so very clearly into focus your position. You equate none consensual sex with protected sex with a loving partner.I plan to have sex tonight with no intention of making a baby; will I be barred from adopting?This is planet 21st century calling Ana?Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Excellent question, though I suppose the reality-dodging doctrinal reply is that there is always the possibility of conception.Also, for some women pregnancy is a life-threatening condition, so they and their husbands choose to use birth control.Should these people be able to adopt? According to Catholic doctrine, I would think not, but I'd be interested to hear Anastasia's perspective.

---

Free Dr. Adequate! Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Well, it is a stipulation for marriage in the church, though I am not sure if strictly enforced at this point, that a couple be physically capable of bearing children. It is also a stipulation that you will enter into wedlock with the desire to have children. In this era of technology, it is possible to determine whether or not a couple can conceive without good 'ol trial and error, and likewise possible to fore-stall conception indefinitely. These things bring issues that were never predicted by the early church. and the best thing to do is try to your utmost to fulfill the ideals of the family and sexuality. It is not possible to deny adoption to everyone who has ever 'sinned'. I previously stated that if sin is sin, homosexuals should be allowed to adopt just as well as masturbators. I am not going to give special treatment to one type of sin. I can only say that most adoption agencies do not ask a couple if they use birth control, and I don't expect a Catholic agency to do more than the usual character screening, or only adopt to couples who are Catholic if they are sticklers. Does anyone know the current rules for adoption from church orgs? It would be more useful to see what the practice is, than to ask me for a guess.

Protected sex is never absolute. Unwanted conceptions are common even with protection. Loving partners commonly become unloving at the mention of 'baby'. Love is bollucks compared to commitment and taking responsibility for your actions.if you want to have sex for fun and then get a baby elsewhere, go ahead. My ideas about the sanctity of sexuality are not subject to the century I happen to live in. I am proud of the churches who do not go with the trends.

You put words into people's mouths and then condemn your own words. The above are not my words but yours. There are many gheys who have children of their own, and I certainly do not think that a gay person can not rear a child any less decently than any other sinner. We are all sinners. 'Good' is in the eyes of the beholder. You make children sound like kittens ...some agencies require vet references, some require character references, some just require love. You know, that fleeting, temporary emotion that sends the kitten to the pound? Character references are a good idea nowadays, and 'good' character is determined in different ways by different folk.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.