Re: Catholic Church fights Britain's gay adoption rules
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
Surely the contemptible evil days of wicked Sodom and Gomorrah have raised
their ugly heads once again. It's taken some 1,000's of years.
What do you think Mike?
But I guess wicked men & women just never learn any lessons from God, do
they?
Eccl. 8:11 "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily,
therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."
Jeff...
2 Peter 2:6 "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes
condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that
after should live ungodly lives."
Michael J Davis
Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC <broadband@[remove].invalid> writes
>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070123-0602-britain-catholic-
>adoption.html
>
>Surely the contemptible evil days of wicked Sodom and Gomorrah have raised
>their ugly heads once again. It's taken some 1,000's of years.
>What do you think Mike?
I'm not quite clear what you are asking here, Jeff. Does it confuse you
that one of your two betes noirs is taking a 'proper stand'?
>But I guess wicked men & women just never learn any lessons from God, do
>they?
I would assume that statement could support any point of view you wish!
;-)
Being serious for a moment. The RCC believes that *in ideal
circumstances* a child put out for adoption should have adoptive parents
of different sex. That being how children are brought into the world.
Of course, there are regrettable times when children end up with a
single parent. But what the Church (or rather the agencies) is/are
resisting, is being forced to "decide" that a same sex couple are
preferable to a mixed sex couple.
AIUI, of course.
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Simon Robinson
> Being serious for a moment. The RCC believes that *in ideal
> circumstances* a child put out for adoption should have adoptive parents
> of different sex. That being how children are brought into the world.
>
> Of course, there are regrettable times when children end up with a
> single parent. But what the Church (or rather the agencies) is/are
> resisting, is being forced to "decide" that a same sex couple are
> preferable to a mixed sex couple.
I can understand the concerns of someone who believes as the RCC does
about homosexuality, but I'm puzzled. Is the RCC involved with running
adoption agencies? If so, why? Surely, adoption is a service (in the
consumer sense, not the religious sense) which doesn't appear to have
anything directly to do with religion? As such, I would've expected to
have been run through some kind of secular agencies? Or is there a lack
of such agencies and church groups are filling in the gap as a
charitable act?
I'm also a bit saddened (though unsurprised) by Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
having been reported as saying that adoption agencies would close in
preference to placing children with homosexuals. Whatever you think
about the morals of homosexuality, it rather strikes me that an agency
that deliberately closed its doors as a result of this is in effect
saying that the evil it perceives in placing a small minority of
children with homosexual adoptors would outweigh the good being done in
placing all the other children it deals with (of whom the vast majority
presumably would still go to heterosexuals, based on the % of
heterosexuals in the population). That seems odd to me. (Well, that's
the 'selfless' rationale I can think of that would justify closing, the
other, rationale, which I'd regard as intrinsically less worthy, would
run something like 'it's so important to us that we keep to our
principles on homosexuality that we'll actually refrain from helping
lots of children in need of adoption in order that we can stick to those
principles').
But this is a topic I know very little about, so perhaps I'm badly
informed in some way?
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Michael J Davis wrote:
>> Being serious for a moment. The RCC believes that *in ideal
>> circumstances* a child put out for adoption should have adoptive parents
>> of different sex. That being how children are brought into the world.
>>
>> Of course, there are regrettable times when children end up with a
>> single parent. But what the Church (or rather the agencies) is/are
>> resisting, is being forced to "decide" that a same sex couple are
>> preferable to a mixed sex couple.
>
>I can understand the concerns of someone who believes as the RCC does
>about homosexuality, but I'm puzzled. Is the RCC involved with running
>adoption agencies?
Yes, it is. As are many other churches.
>If so, why? Surely, adoption is a service (in the
>consumer sense, not the religious sense) which doesn't appear to have
>anything directly to do with religion? As such, I would've expected to
>have been run through some kind of secular agencies? Or is there a lack
>of such agencies and church groups are filling in the gap as a
>charitable act?
Primarily the latter. Adoption agencies are mainly charities; the
government doesn't provide an adoption service directly for the most
part. And many adoption charities are religious in nature, just as
many education, medical and welfare charities are religious. Those
involved in such work would see it as part of their Christian duty of
care for society.
>I'm also a bit saddened (though unsurprised) by Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
>having been reported as saying that adoption agencies would close in
>preference to placing children with homosexuals. Whatever you think
>about the morals of homosexuality, it rather strikes me that an agency
>that deliberately closed its doors as a result of this is in effect
>saying that the evil it perceives in placing a small minority of
>children with homosexual adoptors would outweigh the good being done in
>placing all the other children it deals with (of whom the vast majority
>presumably would still go to heterosexuals, based on the % of
>heterosexuals in the population). That seems odd to me. (Well, that's
>the 'selfless' rationale I can think of that would justify closing, the
>other, rationale, which I'd regard as intrinsically less worthy, would
>run something like 'it's so important to us that we keep to our
>principles on homosexuality that we'll actually refrain from helping
>lots of children in need of adoption in order that we can stick to those
>principles').
It's a bit of both your suggestions (the main one and the one in
parentheses). The RCC in particular is in an impossible position if
the the law goes ahead as proposed, because the RCC is not a British
organisation - the UK arm of the RCC canot act independently of the
main body of the church, and the Vatican is likely to take the view
that the loss of Catholic adoption agencies in just one country is
preferable to permitting a change of practice which could have
significant ramifications for the RCC worldwide. Some individual
adoption agencies run by the RCC could, theoretically, disengage from
the church and continue as independent charities, but the church as a
whole would have no choice but to follow the official line - which
would mean closing down any agencies run directly by the church, in
order to avoid a conflict between UK law and RCC doctrine. Cardinal
Murphy-O'Connor can't offer a compromise on this, as he doesn't have
one to offer - all he can do is make sure that the government is aware
of his position. For supporters of the government line to interpret
this as "blackmail" merely demonstrates how little they know, or care,
about the reality of the situation.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.OrangeHedgehog.com - Useful stuff for the web
"We dream our dreams alone with no resistance"
Richard Corfield
> I'm also a bit saddened (though unsurprised) by Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
> having been reported as saying that adoption agencies would close in
> preference to placing children with homosexuals. Whatever you think
> about the morals of homosexuality, it rather strikes me that an agency
> that deliberately closed its doors as a result of this is in effect
> saying that the evil it perceives in placing a small minority of
> children with homosexual adoptors would outweigh the good being done in
> placing all the other children it deals with (of whom the vast majority
> presumably would still go to heterosexuals, based on the % of
> heterosexuals in the population). That seems odd to me. (Well, that's
> the 'selfless' rationale I can think of that would justify closing, the
> other, rationale, which I'd regard as intrinsically less worthy, would
> run something like 'it's so important to us that we keep to our
> principles on homosexuality that we'll actually refrain from helping
> lots of children in need of adoption in order that we can stick to those
> principles').
Could it be a bluff?
- Richard
--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com>
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone
Frederick Williams
>
> .... The RCC believes that *in ideal
> circumstances* a child put out for adoption should have adoptive parents
> of different sex.
They should be commended for such robust common-sense.
--
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us, and we drown.
Kendall K. Down
Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Of course, there are regrettable times when children end up with a
> single parent. But what the Church (or rather the agencies) is/are
> resisting, is being forced to "decide" that a same sex couple are
> preferable to a mixed sex couple.
Or even that a same sex couple are better than nothing at all.
I highly commend O'Connor for the stand he has taken and am wryly amused
that York and Canterbury have supported him. York is no surprise, but
Canterbury? I hope he didn't get too many splinters in him as he stopped
leaning over the pro-homosexual side and actually climbed down from the
fence.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Kendall K. Down
Simon Robinson <em...@via.my.web.site> wrote:
> I can understand the concerns of someone who believes as the RCC does
> about homosexuality, but I'm puzzled. Is the RCC involved with running
> adoption agencies? If so, why?
Why not? I'll bet the church has been running adoption agencies long before
government got involved.
> I'm also a bit saddened (though unsurprised) by Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
> having been reported as saying that adoption agencies would close in
> preference to placing children with homosexuals. Whatever you think
> about the morals of homosexuality, it rather strikes me that an agency
> that deliberately closed its doors
No, it was clearly explained in various interviews with Catholic spokesmen
that the agencies rely on government funding (so much per child placed, as I
understand it) and if they were found to be breaking the law and this
funding was removed, they would have no choice but to close. It was not a
threat, merely a consequence.
What I found particularly interesting was all these nice pro-homosexual
people who, only a week or so ago were pooh-poohing any idea that the
legislation would discriminate against Christians (remember the B&Bs?), are
now loudly declaring that it would be intolerable for Christians to be
exempted from this particular law.
It seems to me that our fears were well grounded.
Simon Robinson
> No, it was clearly explained in various interviews with Catholic spokesmen
> that the agencies rely on government funding (so much per child placed, as I
> understand it) and if they were found to be breaking the law and this
> funding was removed, they would have no choice but to close. It was not a
> threat, merely a consequence.
Well yes, *if* they broke the law, but it would be their choice to break
the law.
> What I found particularly interesting was all these nice pro-homosexual
> people who, only a week or so ago were pooh-poohing any idea that the
> legislation would discriminate against Christians (remember the B&Bs?), are
> now loudly declaring that it would be intolerable for Christians to be
> exempted from this particular law.
I'm not convinced this particular law would discriminate against
Christians; it does rather depend on what you mean by 'discriminate'.
ISTM that a normal part of dealing with other people is that you
sometimes have to just do 'business' and ignore moral differences. For
example, I'm inclined on moral grounds to think that alcohol is too
readily available and to think that fireworks should not be available at
all to the public to buy. But if I was working in a shop that happened
to sell such items in its range of stock, then I would not expect to be
allowed to refuse to serve customers who want fireworks or alcohol; I'd
expect to treat it as a case where you respect that other people have
different values and you continue to do business with those people
anyway. Similarly, I have a moral objection to people using gas-guzzling
4x4's etc. unnecessarily, but if I was working in a petrol station, I
certainly wouldn't expect to be allowed to refuse to serve any customer
who happened to own such a vehicle.
I'm not totally convinced that the situation with adoption agencies and
gay couples isn't more analogous to those kinds of situation (though I
have a slightly open mind here and may be open to pursuasion).
David Lane
news:w9uth.45741$RL5....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070123-0602-britain-catholic-adoption.html
I'm not surprised they're fighting it. If the Pope's decided homosexuality
is wrong then the adoption agencies have a major conscience issue on their
hands. And they're not happy.
BTW - I had dinner at the weekend with someone who works at one of these
agencies and 'not happy' is an understatement.
David
Robert Marshall
> In message <v7rGDTQK...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid>
> Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Of course, there are regrettable times when children end up with a
>> single parent. But what the Church (or rather the agencies) is/are
>> resisting, is being forced to "decide" that a same sex couple are
>> preferable to a mixed sex couple.
>
> Or even that a same sex couple are better than nothing at all.
>
> I highly commend O'Connor for the stand he has taken
Though you'd have spluttered into your cocoa last night if you've have
heard him on the BBC TV news[1] saying ' there is nothing wrong with gay couples adopting
children' (think that was verbatim) it's just that Catholic adoption
agencies don't wish to use them.
> and am wryly amused that York and Canterbury have supported
> him. York is no surprise, but Canterbury? I hope he didn't get too
> many splinters in him as he stopped leaning over the pro-homosexual
> side and actually climbed down from the fence.
Though I think the letter is more nuanced (or just less clear) than
the baying wolves of the right wish to claim.
Robert
Footnotes:
[1] yes I know you don't have a TV
--
Conformity means death for any community. A loyal opposition is a
necessity in any community Karol Wojtyla (1969)
Links and things http://rmstar.blogspot.com/
Gareth McCaughan
> What I found particularly interesting was all these nice pro-homosexual
> people who, only a week or so ago were pooh-poohing any idea that the
> legislation would discriminate against Christians (remember the B&Bs?), are
> now loudly declaring that it would be intolerable for Christians to be
> exempted from this particular law.
This isn't discriminating against Christians. You appear to be
saying: "All those people who were previously saying that there's
no need for Christians to have a special exemption so that they
can be discriminatory when others aren't allowed to are still
saying that there's no need for Christians to have a special
exemption so that they can be discriminatory when others aren't
allowed to." How very inconsistent of them.
(I think it's a perfectly plausible position that adoptees are
better placed in families with one parent of each sex, and if
the legislation we're now talking about makes it illegal for
adoption agencies to take that position then it's insane, and
this has nothing whatever to do with discriminating on the
basis of sexual orientation. If in fact it does, and if the
government were to change its mind and agree with me on this,
then there'd be no need for any special treatment for Christian
adoption agencies; so far as I can see, the only situation
in which such special treatment would make a difference would
be one in which they wanted to discriminate because they
disapprove of those nasty icky gay people, and not merely
to place children with the best possible adoptive families.)
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Gareth McCaughan
> In message <v7rGDTQK...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid>
> Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Of course, there are regrettable times when children end up with a
>> single parent. But what the Church (or rather the agencies) is/are
>> resisting, is being forced to "decide" that a same sex couple are
>> preferable to a mixed sex couple.
>
> Or even that a same sex couple are better than nothing at all.
In your opinion, is it better for a child to go unadopted
than to be adopted by a same-sex couple? (What happens to
them, if so? Life in an orphanage, or something?)
Michael J Davis
<em...@via.my.web.site> writes
>Michael J Davis wrote:
>> Being serious for a moment. The RCC believes that *in ideal
>>circumstances* a child put out for adoption should have adoptive
>>parents of different sex. That being how children are brought into
>>the world.
>> Of course, there are regrettable times when children end up with a
>>single parent. But what the Church (or rather the agencies) is/are
>>resisting, is being forced to "decide" that a same sex couple are
>>preferable to a mixed sex couple.
>
>I can understand the concerns of someone who believes as the RCC does
>about homosexuality, but I'm puzzled. Is the RCC involved with running
>adoption agencies? If so, why? Surely, adoption is a service (in the
>consumer sense, not the religious sense) which doesn't appear to have
>anything directly to do with religion?
We got two from them in the sixties. Mum was RC and wanted children
brought up RC. But didn't mean we escaped the Local Authority vetting
(IIRC).
>As such, I would've expected to have been run through some kind of
>secular agencies? Or is there a lack of such agencies and church groups
>are filling in the gap as a charitable act?
It's different today. Single mums keep their kids.
>I'm also a bit saddened (though unsurprised) by Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
>having been reported as saying that adoption agencies would close in
>preference to placing children with homosexuals. Whatever you think
>about the morals of homosexuality, it rather strikes me that an agency
>that deliberately closed its doors as a result of this is in effect
>saying that the evil it perceives in placing a small minority of
>children with homosexual adoptors would outweigh the good being done in
>placing all the other children it deals with (of whom the vast majority
>presumably would still go to heterosexuals, based on the % of
>heterosexuals in the population). That seems odd to me. (Well, that's
>the 'selfless' rationale I can think of that would justify closing, the
>other, rationale, which I'd regard as intrinsically less worthy, would
>run something like 'it's so important to us that we keep to our
>principles on homosexuality that we'll actually refrain from helping
>lots of children in need of adoption in order that we can stick to
>those principles').
No comment - I am inclined to agree. But I refer you back to my original
comment.
My attitude is that *anything* is better than children's homes!
>But this is a topic I know very little about, so perhaps I'm badly
>informed in some way?
Yes, I shall study it further.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>[Ken:]
In this context, you may be interested in this story:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2007/01/19/7dd90b31-3b22-4e90-83d9-ecd7f428dcdf.lpf
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"Too sweet to be sour too nice to be mean"
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Ken Down wrote:
Realistically, I don't think that's a significant issue. Now that
being an unmarried mother no longer carries the social stigma it once
did, there are now far more prospective adoptive parents than there
are children available for adoption. So I don't think any children are
likely to lose out as a result of restricting adoption to married
couples (or unmarried heterosexual couples).
The only major exception to the rule of there being more prospective
adoptors than adoptees is in the case of children with severe
behavioural problems. But the reason there is a shortage of adoptors
for them is partly because few people want them and partly because the
agencies, quite rightly IMO, require higher standards from any
prospective adoptors than they would for "normal" children. In any
case, it's arguable that such children are often better cared for in
an institutional setting, where they will have professional attention,
than being placed with possibly ill-equipped adoptive parents.
Sometimes, the orphanage is the better choice.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.CorporateContact.info - phone and email contacts for Amazon, Paypal, eBay and lots of other hard-to-contact organisations
"Every whisper, every waking hour"
Gareth McCaughan
[Ken:]
>>> Or even that a same sex couple are better than nothing at all.
[me:]
>> In your opinion, is it better for a child to go unadopted
>> than to be adopted by a same-sex couple? (What happens to
>> them, if so? Life in an orphanage, or something?)
[Mark:]
> Realistically, I don't think that's a significant issue. Now that
> being an unmarried mother no longer carries the social stigma it once
> did, there are now far more prospective adoptive parents than there
> are children available for adoption. So I don't think any children are
> likely to lose out as a result of restricting adoption to married
> couples (or unmarried heterosexual couples).
Doesn't that assume quite a degree of "mobility" (maybe
"interchangeability" would be a better term) between
the RC adoption agencies and the others?
Imagine a world in which the RC adoption agencies just do
what's best for the child even if that means placing her
with a same-sex couple. And imagine that sometimes that
really does mean placing her with a same-sex couple. Now
look at one such child, and switch to the real world. That
child will get placed with an opposite-sex couple instead;
the RC charities aren't going to be much keener on single
parents than on same-sex couples. Whoever would have been
placed with that opposite-sex couple in the ideal world
will be placed with some other opposite-sex couple, and
so on until eventually either (1) some child doesn't get
placed or (2) they get placed by a different agency. Which
is where "mobility" comes in.
Let's suppose there is enough mobility, which there might
well be. Then, for your argument to work, what needs to
happen is that (overall) we replace one adoption-by-gay-parents
with one adoption-by-single-parent. Do you (and Ken, if he
agrees with what you've said in response to what I asked him)
think it's plausible that that's often an improvement?
> The only major exception to the rule of there being more prospective
> adoptors than adoptees is in the case of children with severe
> behavioural problems. But the reason there is a shortage of adoptors
> for them is partly because few people want them and partly because the
> agencies, quite rightly IMO, require higher standards from any
> prospective adoptors than they would for "normal" children. In any
> case, it's arguable that such children are often better cared for in
> an institutional setting, where they will have professional attention,
> than being placed with possibly ill-equipped adoptive parents.
> Sometimes, the orphanage is the better choice.
I would be interested in any evidence you might have for that.
(Sure, it's *arguable*, but I prefer such arguments to be made
on the basis of facts when possible.)
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>[Ken:]
>>>> Or even that a same sex couple are better than nothing at all.
>
>[me:]
>>> In your opinion, is it better for a child to go unadopted
>>> than to be adopted by a same-sex couple? (What happens to
>>> them, if so? Life in an orphanage, or something?)
>
>[Mark:]
>> Realistically, I don't think that's a significant issue. Now that
>> being an unmarried mother no longer carries the social stigma it once
>> did, there are now far more prospective adoptive parents than there
>> are children available for adoption. So I don't think any children are
>> likely to lose out as a result of restricting adoption to married
>> couples (or unmarried heterosexual couples).
>
>Doesn't that assume quite a degree of "mobility" (maybe
>"interchangeability" would be a better term) between
>the RC adoption agencies and the others?
Yes, but I think that's a reasonable assumption.
>Imagine a world in which the RC adoption agencies just do
>what's best for the child even if that means placing her
>with a same-sex couple.
If the RCC had the opinion that a same-sex couple could be the best
choice, then we wouldn't be having this debate. One of the main
reasons the RCC opposes allowing same-sex couples to adopt is that
they don't think same-sex couples are suitable, or that they could
ever be the best choice when other option are available.
> And imagine that sometimes that
>really does mean placing her with a same-sex couple.
Again, in that imaginary scenario then the current situation does't
exist. I happen to share the RCC's view that, with very few
exceptions, adoptive parents should be married couples. (And by
"married" I mean married, not cohabiting or in a civil partnership or
other form of legally recognised relationship).
> Now
>look at one such child, and switch to the real world. That
>child will get placed with an opposite-sex couple instead;
>the RC charities aren't going to be much keener on single
>parents than on same-sex couples. Whoever would have been
>placed with that opposite-sex couple in the ideal world
>will be placed with some other opposite-sex couple, and
>so on until eventually either (1) some child doesn't get
>placed or (2) they get placed by a different agency.
Or the child gets placed with a couple who otherwise wouldn't have
been able to adopt.
> Which
>is where "mobility" comes in.
>
>Let's suppose there is enough mobility, which there might
>well be. Then, for your argument to work, what needs to
>happen is that (overall) we replace one adoption-by-gay-parents
>with one adoption-by-single-parent. Do you (and Ken, if he
>agrees with what you've said in response to what I asked him)
>think it's plausible that that's often an improvement?
I think it would be less than ideal, except under certain
circmstances. But there are occasions where it would be appropriate.
And, if it was appropriate, then it wouldn't necessarily be a major
problem if the individual concerned was gay.
>> The only major exception to the rule of there being more prospective
>> adoptors than adoptees is in the case of children with severe
>> behavioural problems. But the reason there is a shortage of adoptors
>> for them is partly because few people want them and partly because the
>> agencies, quite rightly IMO, require higher standards from any
>> prospective adoptors than they would for "normal" children. In any
>> case, it's arguable that such children are often better cared for in
>> an institutional setting, where they will have professional attention,
>> than being placed with possibly ill-equipped adoptive parents.
>> Sometimes, the orphanage is the better choice.
>
>I would be interested in any evidence you might have for that.
>(Sure, it's *arguable*, but I prefer such arguments to be made
>on the basis of facts when possible.)
I don't have any more detailed information to hand; I'm simply
repeating what I've been told by someone I know who works in that
area. According to my source, there is political pressure to place as
many children as possible, even if the prospective adoptors are less
than ideal and/or the adoptee is likely to have difficulty adapting to
their new life, because instititional care is currently seen as
unfashionable as well as being expensive (cf the equivalent debate in
the mental health arena about "care in the community"). But, in
practice, this often allows the adoption agency to dump the problem
onto the local social services, who end up picking up the pieces when
adoptive relationships fail.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.OrangeHedgehog.com - Useful stuff for the web
"I'm gonna be there tomorrow"
Richard Corfield
>
> What I found particularly interesting was all these nice pro-homosexual
> people who, only a week or so ago were pooh-poohing any idea that the
> legislation would discriminate against Christians (remember the B&Bs?), are
> now loudly declaring that it would be intolerable for Christians to be
> exempted from this particular law.
>
> It seems to me that our fears were well grounded.
Would allowing the churches exemption from this law lead to other
exemptions for other religious groups for other laws? Could we start
choosing our religion depending on which set of laws we like the most?
Now Kendall, did you argue for or against Sharia Law for Muslims in this
country? (What would happen if a Muslim and non-Muslim ended up in court
against eachother?)
Are we even getting worried about a known side effect of the law? I'd
have thought that adoption wasn't a "Good" or "Service". Even if so,
the prospective adopters would have to be judged on how well they
could care for the child. I'm not convinced that "being a same sex
couple" necessarily implies there would be problems. I'd expect in each
category, same sex and opposite sex couples, there's a wide range of
suitability. The danger comes if a same sex couple that are unsuitable
for other reasons ends up playing the discrimination card in court.
Tony Gillam
> In message <v7rGDTQK...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid>
> Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Of course, there are regrettable times when children end up with a
>> single parent. But what the Church (or rather the agencies) is/are
>> resisting, is being forced to "decide" that a same sex couple are
>> preferable to a mixed sex couple.
>
> Or even that a same sex couple are better than nothing at all.
>
> I highly commend O'Connor for the stand he has taken and am wryly
> amused that York and Canterbury have supported him. York is no
> surprise, but Canterbury? I hope he didn't get too many splinters in
> him as he stopped leaning over the pro-homosexual side and actually
> climbed down from the fence.
>
turned down because they were too old at 40 or too overweight and
unhealthy. Is the goverment going to be as diligent in equality in these
areas as well? I doubt it because it is not the "sacred cow" of
homosexual acceptance.
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Ian Smith
>
> The only major exception to the rule of there being more prospective
> adoptors than adoptees is in the case of children with severe
> behavioural problems.
I've seen at least one reference that the Catholic church agencies
place 4% of the adoptions overall, but about a third (over a third?)
of teh 'difficult to place' children.
That is, it seems there is some evidence that your 'only exception'
may be the dominant case in this situation. It may not be the minor
significance your phrasing implies.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Michael J Davis
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> writes
I have made it quite clear that IMHO anything is better than children's
homes.
AIUI, the problem lies with the adoption agencies not being able to
'prefer' a mixed sex couple over a same sex couple. i.e. if it is used
as a weighting factor in the decision it is illegal.
(That's AIUI, I'm still getting to grips with the issues.)
Michael J Davis
<tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> writes
Excellent point!
Michael J Davis
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>
>In this context, you may be interested in this story:
>http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2007/01/19/7dd90b31-3b22-4e90-
>83d9-ecd7f428dcdf.lpf
Quote from the article...
Asked why the store had someone who would not sell tobacco working
behind the till, she said: "It is against the law to discriminate
against people on religious grounds".
Stupid. WHS HQ 'spokesman' seems to have made the same point - which is
stupid!
WHS employ people to sell what they have to sell. They should offer the
job on that basis. If I (frinstance) objected to selling such things on
religious grounds, *I* shouldn't take the job.
What a mess PC and the law is getting into! Now back to the subject
above....
Tony Bryer
> AIUI, the problem lies with the adoption agencies not being able to
> 'prefer' a mixed sex couple over a same sex couple. i.e. if it is
> used as a weighting factor in the decision it is illegal.
Surely they, to a significant degree, are reflecting the views of the
parent(s) who have placed the child with them for adoption. I would
assume that the said parent(s) have gone to a Catholic adoption agency
precisely because they have a particular ethos when it comes to
selecting adoptive parents. IOW if I were a Catholic I might offer the
agency my child because of this, but not otherwise.
I haven't got to the end of the thread, so this may be mentioned
elsewhere, but isn't it now the case that the natural parents are
encouraged to keep contact with the child, rather than the old days of
babies being snatched away in the delivery room, never to be seen
again by the mother. If so, the adoptive parents have surely got to be
people in a situation that the natural parent(s) are happy with?
I think that the shop analogies are unhelpful: it's not about your
right to buy goods, rather the legitimate rights (IMO) of the parent
to dictate how they would like their child to be brought up.
--
Tony Bryer
Michael J Davis
<to...@delme.sda.co.uk> writes
You could be right.
When we adopted from the Catholic Children's Rescue Society nearly 40
years ago, it was a) no contact with the OP (original parent) and
because the CCRS were entrusted to uphold the mother's wish to bring the
child up a Catholic. (AFAP).
But then there were lots of kids 'available'. It's quite different
today.
James (at the age of 37 or 38 - i.e. recently) has managed to track down
his mother, now in California. He has a half brother that looks just
like him!! Not sure how that will pan out. They met just after the first
contact as she was in the UK. Since then they have kept in touch by
e-mail.
My point is that now - with OP maintaining contact, the problems of
identity caused by having two same sex parents may be less than it would
have been in the past.
Another difference from 'our day' is that as far as we were concerned
adoption was final - we *were* our adoptive children's parents. However
a young friend of ours was adopted and the father subsequently abused
her, and she was 'unadopted'. I don't know the legal basis for that.
Anybody?
Peter Ashby
> In message <v7rGDTQK...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid>
> Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Of course, there are regrettable times when children end up with a
> > single parent. But what the Church (or rather the agencies) is/are
> > resisting, is being forced to "decide" that a same sex couple are
> > preferable to a mixed sex couple.
>
> Or even that a same sex couple are better than nothing at all.
>
> I highly commend O'Connor for the stand he has taken and am wryly amused
> that York and Canterbury have supported him. York is no surprise, but
> Canterbury? I hope he didn't get too many splinters in him as he stopped
> leaning over the pro-homosexual side and actually climbed down from the
> fence.
I recommend this article from today's Guardian on the matter of
Rowan-Williams's apparent hypocrisy:
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,1998060,00.html>
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net
Peter Ashby
>
> It's a bit of both your suggestions (the main one and the one in
> parentheses). The RCC in particular is in an impossible position if
> the the law goes ahead as proposed, because the RCC is not a British
> organisation - the UK arm of the RCC canot act independently of the
> main body of the church, and the Vatican is likely to take the view
> that the loss of Catholic adoption agencies in just one country is
> preferable to permitting a change of practice which could have
> significant ramifications for the RCC worldwide.
This article says It is allowed in San Francisco for homosexual couples
to adopt through the catholic agency there:
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,1998060,00.html>
It was Cardinal Levada, who now has the Pope's old job who allowed it as
well.
David Aldred
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Mark Goodge <> wrote:
>>
>> The only major exception to the rule of there being more prospective
>> adoptors than adoptees is in the case of children with severe
>> behavioural problems.
>
> I've seen at least one reference that the Catholic church agencies
> place 4% of the adoptions overall, but about a third (over a third?)
> of teh 'difficult to place' children.
Catholic agencies do tend to deal with a very high proportion of 'difficult
to place' children: in some cases almost all the children they place are in
this category.
That is one of the reasons they are so concerned over this legislation.
Many of these children are in the categories where the nature of the
adoptive family is critical: placement where there are both male and female
parents, and often where there are non-adopted older children as part of
the family is of major importance. However, requiring such criteria would
break the proposed laws.
Unlike the race discrimination legislation (where exceptions exist), the
best interests of the child don't count if the question is one of sexual
orientation of prospective adopters.
--
David Aldred
Kendall K. Down
Robert Marshall <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Though you'd have spluttered into your cocoa last night if you've have
> heard him on the BBC TV news[1] saying ' there is nothing wrong with
> gay couples adopting children' (think that was verbatim) it's just that
> Catholic adoption agencies don't wish to use them.
Really? I'd want some context, but if it was as bald as you claim, my
respect for him is greatly lessened.
> Though I think the letter is more nuanced (or just less clear) than
> the baying wolves of the right wish to claim.
Now that does *not* surprise me. He's probably still lying awake at night
sweating over even *appearing* to do anything other than dither and
vacillate.
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Imagine a world in which the RC adoption agencies just do
> what's best for the child even if that means placing her
> with a same-sex couple.
No, that would never be the case, any more than placing a child with a kind
and caring paedophile would be in the child's best interests.
Would you consider that a child taken under Fagin's wing was better off than
one left on the streets? (And remember that the child on the streets might
starve to death - but the one taken in by Fagin might get sent to
Australia!)
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In your opinion, is it better for a child to go unadopted
> than to be adopted by a same-sex couple? (What happens to
> them, if so? Life in an orphanage, or something?)
Yes, it is better.
No doubt you will dream up some counter example where the unadopted child is
kept chained in a dark basement and forced to pick oakum twenty-five hours a
day. Allow me to say in advance that I shall adopt your attitude towards
such extreme examples.
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > What I found particularly interesting was all these nice pro-homosexual
> > people who, only a week or so ago were pooh-poohing any idea that the
> > legislation would discriminate against Christians (remember the B&Bs?), are
> > now loudly declaring that it would be intolerable for Christians to be
> > exempted from this particular law.
> This isn't discriminating against Christians. You appear to be
> saying: "All those people who were previously saying that there's
> no need for Christians to have a special exemption so that they
> can be discriminatory when others aren't allowed to are still
> saying that there's no need for Christians to have a special
> exemption so that they can be discriminatory when others aren't
> allowed to." How very inconsistent of them.
No. The proponents of the law were asserting that it would pose no problems
for Christians (and other religious groups). We declared that it would and
cited B&Bs as an example of a situation where the law would create a
problem.
Certainly Christians are nasty discriminatory people: some of the things
against which we discriminate are in harmony with the irrational prejudices
of society, some are contrary to society. We do not accept society or
fashion as the arbiters of right and wrong: if something is wrong we
discriminate against it - whether society agrees with us or not.
> (I think it's a perfectly plausible position that adoptees are
> better placed in families with one parent of each sex, and if
> the legislation we're now talking about makes it illegal for
> adoption agencies to take that position then it's insane, and
> this has nothing whatever to do with discriminating on the
> basis of sexual orientation.
I'm glad that you think this law is insane.
> If in fact it does, and if the
> government were to change its mind and agree with me on this,
> then there'd be no need for any special treatment for Christian
> adoption agencies; so far as I can see, the only situation
> in which such special treatment would make a difference would
> be one in which they wanted to discriminate because they
> disapprove of those nasty icky gay people, and not merely
> to place children with the best possible adoptive families.)
The latest news is that the government will not change its mind. If
Canterbury and Rome were to get together and excommunicate the Blair family
(or even this whole government), I would applaud.
Kendall K. Down
Simon Robinson <em...@via.my.web.site> wrote:
> Well yes, *if* they broke the law, but it would be their choice to break
> the law.
Given Christian beliefs, they would have no choice but to break the law.
> I'm not convinced this particular law would discriminate against
> Christians; it does rather depend on what you mean by 'discriminate'.
> ISTM that a normal part of dealing with other people is that you
> sometimes have to just do 'business' and ignore moral differences. For
> example, I'm inclined on moral grounds to think that alcohol is too
> readily available and to think that fireworks should not be available at
> all to the public to buy. But if I was working in a shop that happened
> to sell such items in its range of stock, then I would not expect to be
> allowed to refuse to serve customers who want fireworks or alcohol
If you had reasonable grounds for believing that the sale of those items
would harm the person, you would have a legal duty to refuse to sell them -
for example, landlords have the invidious task of refusing to sell alcohol
to a customer who is drunk and fireworks sellers have to judge the age of
the person wanting to buy their goods.
No responsible adoption agency would allow a paedophile to adopt a young
child and if a law were to be passed directing that paedophiles should be
allowed to adopt, I would hope that Christian adoption agencies would refuse
to comply. The evil that we foresee from allowing homosexuals to adopt is
different but no less real, therefore we cannot comply with the law.
Robert Marshall
> In message <m1r6tkd...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk>
> Robert Marshall <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Though you'd have spluttered into your cocoa last night if you've
>> have heard him on the BBC TV news[1] saying ' there is nothing
>> wrong with gay couples adopting children' (think that was verbatim)
>> it's just that Catholic adoption agencies don't wish to use them.
>
> Really? I'd want some context, but if it was as bald as you claim,
> my respect for him is greatly lessened.
>
No I didn't get it quite correct, it was more we have no objection
to... the interview is still on the BBC web site at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6292315.stm
though that quote comes right at the start of the Abp piece (about a
minute in) so it is difficult know what question he was asked.
The Children's Society (the CofE group) has, of course, chosen the best
adoptive parent regardless of their sexual orientation for a number of
years
Robert
Kendall K. Down
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> I recommend this article from today's Guardian on the matter of
> Rowan-Williams's apparent hypocrisy:
I don't know why you inserted the word "apparent". If the story is true -
and I rather suspect it is - I think Williams and Blair would make good
stable mates: they have no principles apart from a readiness to run with
whichever pack holds the purse-strings.
Kendall K. Down
Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would allowing the churches exemption from this law lead to other
> exemptions for other religious groups for other laws? Could we start
> choosing our religion depending on which set of laws we like the most?
It's not a new concept: we already make exemptions from crash helmet law for
Sikhs and back in the days when Sunday trading was out, Jews and Muslims
were allowed to trade on Sunday (on the sometimes dubious assumption that
they closed on a different day of the week).
> Now Kendall, did you argue for or against Sharia Law for Muslims in this
> country? (What would happen if a Muslim and non-Muslim ended up in court
> against eachother?)
I am against Sharia Law in this country, partly because it is a vicious
nasty law system and mainly because it would amount to a separate government
that would affect Muslims and non-Muslims in those parts of the country
where it was imposed.
> Are we even getting worried about a known side effect of the law? I'd
> have thought that adoption wasn't a "Good" or "Service". Even if so,
> the prospective adopters would have to be judged on how well they
> could care for the child. I'm not convinced that "being a same sex
> couple" necessarily implies there would be problems. I'd expect in each
> category, same sex and opposite sex couples, there's a wide range of
> suitability. The danger comes if a same sex couple that are unsuitable
> for other reasons ends up playing the discrimination card in court.
No doubt, and I agree that not all opposite sex couples are suitable
adopters. Same sex couples, however, are *never* suitable adopters.
michaeld
> Would allowing the churches exemption from this law lead to other
> exemptions for other religious groups for other laws? Could we start
> choosing our religion depending on which set of laws we like the most?
I think it would be a disaster if religious groups were granted automatic
exemption from laws simply because the would-be laws violate their
religious beliefs.
However in this case I think the Catholic church are in the right and it
needn't have anything to do with religion; adoption agencies, whether
religious or not, should have the right to refuse single sex parents. More
generally I don't think there should be any such thing as a right to
adopt. The adoption agencies should be acting in the child's interest, and
this means finding what, in their judgement, are the best parents for
raising the child. If a couple, single-sex or not, is refused for whatever
reason then that's unfortunate and I may well feel very sorry for them,
but I could hardly call it a rights violation.
Michael
--
----== posted via PHP Headliner ==----
michaeld
>
> I recommend this article from today's Guardian on the matter of
> Rowan-Williams's apparent hypocrisy:
>
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,1998060,00.html>
What apparent hypocrisy? Perhaps Dr. Williams has no trouble at all,
personally, with gay adoption. Perhaps he also thinks that adoption
agencies are responsible for deciding on the best parents for the children
and if they decide this precludes considering single sex couples then the
law shouldn't overrule their judgement. No contradiction as far as I can
see.
Michael J Davis
<steve....@gmail.com> writes
>On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:23:54 +0000, Michael J Davis
><?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Another difference from 'our day' is that as far as we were concerned
>>adoption was final - we *were* our adoptive children's parents. However
>>a young friend of ours was adopted and the father subsequently abused
>>her, and she was 'unadopted'. I don't know the legal basis for that.
>>Anybody?
>
>However, a further adoption order can be made to remove parental
>responsibility from the adoptive parents.
>
>There is one exception when it is possible to revoke an adoption order
>and this is where a child is adopted by one natural parent as the sole
>adoptive parent and then the child is legitimised by the marriage of
>his/her natural parents. Either parent can then apply to revoke the
>adoption order.
>
>Article 13 of the European Convention on the Adoption of Children
>states that "Before an adopted person comes of age the adoption may be
>revoked only by a decision of a judicial or administrative authority
>on serious grounds, and only if revocation on that ground is permitted
>by law."
>
>I don't know if this helps.
Thanks Steve. Since I don't know the details of the case in question, I
can't comment further (and probably wouldn't if I did!) but that's a bit
more information.
Michael J Davis
<mich...@cantab.net> writes
>Richard Corfield wrote:
>
>> Would allowing the churches exemption from this law lead to other
>> exemptions for other religious groups for other laws? Could we start
>> choosing our religion depending on which set of laws we like the most?
>
>I think it would be a disaster if religious groups were granted automatic
>exemption from laws simply because the would-be laws violate their
>religious beliefs.
'Automatic' yes, 'considered' perhaps.
>
>However in this case I think the Catholic church are in the right and it
>needn't have anything to do with religion; adoption agencies, whether
>religious or not, should have the right to refuse single sex parents. More
>generally I don't think there should be any such thing as a right to
>adopt.
I don't think there is - but that's a point worth hanging on to. It
could become so!
>The adoption agencies should be acting in the child's interest, and
>this means finding what, in their judgement, are the best parents for
>raising the child. If a couple, single-sex or not, is refused for whatever
>reason then that's unfortunate and I may well feel very sorry for them,
>but I could hardly call it a rights violation.
Yes. Agreed.
Alan Zanker
>Peter Ashby wrote:
>>
>> I recommend this article from today's Guardian on the matter of
>> Rowan-Williams's apparent hypocrisy:
>>
>> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,1998060,00.html>
>
>What apparent hypocrisy?
I found it disappointing rather than hypocritical!
>Perhaps Dr. Williams has no trouble at all,
>personally, with gay adoption. Perhaps he also thinks that adoption
>agencies are responsible for deciding on the best parents for the children
>and if they decide this precludes considering single sex couples then the
>law shouldn't overrule their judgement. No contradiction as far as I can
>see.
The problem here isn't that the adoption agencies must decide on the
most suitable parents, which is absolutely right, but the criterion they
are using for rejection.
In the example given in the article an atheist heterosexual couple would
not apparently be rejected by a RC agency solely on that ground (though
I assume that other factors, possibly including the way they regard
religion and how this would affect the upbringing of the children could
reasonably be considered relevant).
However, a couple in a same-sex relationship would be rejected for that
reason without further consideration, and this is where it is obvious
that prejudice outweighs judgement.
Alan
Richard Corfield
> However in this case I think the Catholic church are in the right and it
> needn't have anything to do with religion; adoption agencies, whether
> religious or not, should have the right to refuse single sex parents. More
> generally I don't think there should be any such thing as a right to
> adopt. The adoption agencies should be acting in the child's interest, and
> this means finding what, in their judgement, are the best parents for
> raising the child. If a couple, single-sex or not, is refused for whatever
> reason then that's unfortunate and I may well feel very sorry for them,
> but I could hardly call it a rights violation.
What evidence do you have to come to the conclusion that all same sex
couples are bad for the child? If such can be shown, then a statement
of "We shall never allow same sex couples to foster" can be justified,
but at this stage it comes down to either religion or "Ugh Factor". The
catholics are defending their position using their religion.
I've not yet met any same sex families, so I do not have enough evidence
to come to such a conclusion.
Kendall K. Down
Robert Marshall <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> The Children's Society (the CofE group) has, of course, chosen the best
> adoptive parent regardless of their sexual orientation for a number of
> years
If it has chosen homosexual "parents", then it has not chosen the best.
michaeld
>
> On 2007-01-26, michaeld <mich...@cantab.net> wrote:
> > However in this case I think the Catholic church are in the right and it
> > needn't have anything to do with religion; adoption agencies, whether
> > religious or not, should have the right to refuse single sex parents. More
> > generally I don't think there should be any such thing as a right to
> > adopt. The adoption agencies should be acting in the child's interest, and
> > this means finding what, in their judgement, are the best parents for
> > raising the child. If a couple, single-sex or not, is refused for whatever
> > reason then that's unfortunate and I may well feel very sorry for them,
> > but I could hardly call it a rights violation.
>
> What evidence do you have to come to the conclusion that all same sex
> couples are bad for the child?
I have no such evidence - if I were setting up an adoption agency I don't
think I would have such a policy.
(Maybe my "in this case I think the Catholic church are in the right"
statement was confusing - I was referring to their objections to being
forced to change their policy if the legislation goes through. I was not
endorsing the policy itself, which I don't have a particularly strong
opinion on.)
> If such can be shown, then a statement
> of "We shall never allow same sex couples to foster" can be justified,
> but at this stage it comes down to either religion or "Ugh Factor". The
> catholics are defending their position using their religion.
Even though I wouldn't want to claim anything definitive either way, there
are a few possible other reasons that spring to mind for why single-sex
adoption may be disadvantageous in general (which is of course a far
weaker statement).
The most obvious one is that the children are likely to suffer ridicule
and abuse at the hands of their peers.
(Of course in general I don't believe people should be intimidated into
submission by bullies - but is it really fair to lay this on a child who
has no say in the matter of who his/her adoptive parents are?)
Richard Corfield
> I've not yet met any same sex families, so I do not have enough evidence
> to come to such a conclusion.
A point I've read does raise the question of how a girl would get on
without a mother, or a boy without a father, either without a parent of
the same sex to share experience of growing up. This would happen in
single parent families though, so that knowledge must be there. Could
two male parents support a girl in onset of puberty? How well do single
male parents currently cope?
While I may disagree with justification on the lines of "because my
religion says so", justification with a real reason to support it is OK.
michaeld
> However, a couple in a same-sex relationship would be rejected for that
> reason without further consideration, and this is where it is obvious
> that prejudice outweighs judgement.
My understanding is that there are many more couples who wish to adopt
than children needing adoption. If the Catholic Church comes to the
judgement that the couple being same-sex is a massive disadvantage then it
may be entirely reasonable to reject on those grounds alone, since out of
such a large pool of couples there will be easily enough heterosexual
couples that fulfill all the other requirements well.
michaeld
> >However in this case I think the Catholic church are in the right and it
> >needn't have anything to do with religion; adoption agencies, whether
> >religious or not, should have the right to refuse single sex parents. More
> >generally I don't think there should be any such thing as a right to
> >adopt.
>
> I don't think there is - but that's a point worth hanging on to.
Thanks; I think you may be right about this. Having anti-discrimination
laws is, I suppose, not the same thing as saying everyone has a right to
adopt. In much the same way there are anti-discrimination laws for
employers choosing their employees on the grounds of race, sexuality,
gender, etc but there is no such thing as a right to be employed by
someone particular.
The one very obvious place that analogy breaks down is that, while
sexuality, race etc. is irrelevant for most occupations, the sex of the
two parents is not obviously irrelevant in the case of adoption. Of course
how important it is is highly debatable but it does appear to be a
legitimate criterion to consider when assessing the suitability of the
couple.
Richard Corfield
>
> I have no such evidence - if I were setting up an adoption agency I don't
> think I would have such a policy.
>
An opposing argument is that this new law does effectively bring the
condition "If you wish to keep doing this good thing, you must do so on
these conditions". Given this, the threat from the church groups of
closing down seems quite applicable.
If someone mandated that I did something I disagree with in the process
of my normal activities I'd be quite upset.
It's a really complex case this one - no simple answer.
Alan Zanker
Something like: 'I am a white employer with 20 employees, all white. I
have advertised a vacancy and the (marginally) best applicant in terms
of qualifications, background and experience is black. However I
consider that being black would be a massive disadvantage so it's
reasonable for me to reject his application as many of the large pool of
other applicants could do the job almost as well.'?
I've seen it argued that accepting the new rules would not affect the
RCs' position because, knowing their views, no gay couple wishing to
adopt would approach an RC agency. However I think the real danger for
the RCs is that someone with sufficient financial resources would do so
for litigious reasons.
If so, tough!
Alan
Mark Goodge
to keyboard and typed:
>On 2007-01-26, Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've not yet met any same sex families, so I do not have enough evidence
>> to come to such a conclusion.
>
>A point I've read does raise the question of how a girl would get on
>without a mother, or a boy without a father, either without a parent of
>the same sex to share experience of growing up. This would happen in
>single parent families though, so that knowledge must be there. Could
>two male parents support a girl in onset of puberty? How well do single
>male parents currently cope?
Well, there is considerable statistical evidence that children do
better in traditional, two-parent families. This doesn't mean that all
single parents are bad parents, or that all two-parent families are
good families, or that an individual single parent can't do as well as
or better than the typical two-parent family. However, when placing
children with adoptive parents, such statistics are a very relevent
consideration - all other things being equal, a married couple are
more likely to be a better choice than a single person. This becomes
even more so with "difficult" children, where the adoption agencies
strongly prefer prospective adoptors to have experience of
successfully raising their own, natural children and have a strong,
stable relationship before being allowed to adopt a child with special
needs. And this happens to be the area that most Catholic agencies
specialise in - they tend to deal primarily with children that can't
be placed by the local authorities' own in-house agencies. If they
can't take the relationship status of prospective adoptors into
account, then their ability to find suitable families for the more
troubled children is likely to be significantly compromised.
In any case, enforcing a requirement to treat homosexual couples
equally with heterosexual couples is simply unnecessary. If the
government doesn't think that the Catholic agencies are doing a good
job, they can simply stop using them - the agencies would have no work
if children were not referred to them by local authorities. If the
government doesn't believe that the Catholic agencies' current
policies are in the best interests of the children, then they can use
other agencies with different policies (or give more resources to
state-run agencies so that they don't need to outsource placement). On
the other hand, if they agree that the agencies are doing their best
for the children, then forcing a significant policy change onto them
smacks of political expediency rather than being motivated by genuine
concern for the rights of those involved.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.MineOfUseless.info - everything you never needed to know!
"If you never know truth then you never know love"
michaeld
>
> mich...@cantab.net (michaeld) wrote:
>
> >Alan Zanker wrote:
> >
> >> However, a couple in a same-sex relationship would be rejected for that
> >> reason without further consideration, and this is where it is obvious
> >> that prejudice outweighs judgement.
> >
> >My understanding is that there are many more couples who wish to adopt
> >than children needing adoption. If the Catholic Church comes to the
> >judgement that the couple being same-sex is a massive disadvantage then it
> >may be entirely reasonable to reject on those grounds alone, since out of
> >such a large pool of couples there will be easily enough heterosexual
> >couples that fulfill all the other requirements well.
>
> Something like: 'I am a white employer with 20 employees, all white. I
> have advertised a vacancy and the (marginally) best applicant in terms
> of qualifications, background and experience is black. However I
> consider that being black would be a massive disadvantage so it's
> reasonable for me to reject his application as many of the large pool of
> other applicants could do the job almost as well.'?
Well there are really two issues here: first whether it is reasonable to
consider single-sex as a big disadvantage (or in your example, whether to
consider being black as a massive disadvantage for the job) and second, if
the answer to that is yes, whether it is reasonable to reject all such
applications. I was attempting to argue the second point.
Where your analogy differs from the original is of course in the first
point. There may well be very reasonable grounds for regarding single-sex
as a big disadvantage for prospective adoptive parents - at any rate the
point is highly arguable. On the other hand there are no good grounds
whatsoever for regarding being black as a disadvantage for any job I can
currently think of (except contrived examples, like the job of being the
actor for a character in a play who is white).
Simon Robinson
> The most obvious one is that the children are likely to suffer ridicule
> and abuse at the hands of their peers.
>
> (Of course in general I don't believe people should be intimidated into
> submission by bullies - but is it really fair to lay this on a child who
> has no say in the matter of who his/her adoptive parents are?)
Out of interest, what would be your attitude if, hypothetically, we were
coming out of a racist era in which black people had previously not been
allowed to adopt children, and an argument being espoused by people
against liberalising the law was 'but any child adopted by a black
couple will face ridicule and abuse at the hands of their [racist] peers'?
Simon Robinson
> Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Imagine a world in which the RC adoption agencies just do
>> what's best for the child even if that means placing her
>> with a same-sex couple.
>
> No, that would never be the case, any more than placing a child with a kind
> and caring paedophile would be in the child's best interests.
Why wouldn't it ever be best for the child to be placed with a same-sex
couple? The reasons for not placing a child with a known, convicted,
paedophile, are obvious. But offhand I can't see any strong reason for
not placing a child with a same-sex couple, so your analogy looks pretty
strange to me.
Simon Robinson
> Simon Robinson <em...@via.my.web.site> wrote:
>> Well yes, *if* they broke the law, but it would be their choice to break
>> the law.
> Given Christian beliefs, they would have no choice but to break the law.
No. Given conservative-Christian beliefs AND a belief something along
the lines that you mustn't ever do business with anyone who disagrees
with you, then you might have a point. Do substantial numbers of
mainstream Christians have such a belief? The conspicuous lack of, for
example, Christian shops refusing to serve muslim customers, or refusing
to serve atheist customers, would appear to indicate otherwise. (I'm
guessing you'll argue that entrusting someone with a child for adoption
isn't the same thing as selling someone a loaf of bread, and I'd agree
that it is different in many ways; but offhand I can't think how any of
the differences would justify the very different treatment of gay people
in the two situations that seems to be implied by your, and the RC
church's, stance)
>> I'm not convinced this particular law would discriminate against
>> Christians; it does rather depend on what you mean by 'discriminate'.
>> ISTM that a normal part of dealing with other people is that you
>> sometimes have to just do 'business' and ignore moral differences. For
>> example, I'm inclined on moral grounds to think that alcohol is too
>> readily available and to think that fireworks should not be available at
>> all to the public to buy. But if I was working in a shop that happened
>> to sell such items in its range of stock, then I would not expect to be
>> allowed to refuse to serve customers who want fireworks or alcohol
>
> If you had reasonable grounds for believing that the sale of those items
> would harm the person, you would have a legal duty to refuse to sell them -
> for example, landlords have the invidious task of refusing to sell alcohol
> to a customer who is drunk and fireworks sellers have to judge the age of
> the person wanting to buy their goods.
Indeed. And IF there were some compelling evidence that the fact of
being brought up by a same-sex couple is sufficient to do serious harm
to children, then ISTM there would be a good case on those grounds for
an adoption agency viewing same-sexness as a big negative when deciding
where to place a child. Do you have some such evidence?
> No responsible adoption agency would allow a paedophile to adopt a young
> child and if a law were to be passed directing that paedophiles should be
> allowed to adopt, I would hope that Christian adoption agencies would refuse
> to comply. The evil that we foresee from allowing homosexuals to adopt is
> different but no less real, therefore we cannot comply with the law.
What evil do you foresee? What evidence do you have that this evil is
likely to happen?
Simon Robinson
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:43:05 +0000, Simon Robinson put finger to
>> Similarly, I have a moral objection to people using gas-guzzling
>> 4x4's etc. unnecessarily, but if I was working in a petrol station, I
>> certainly wouldn't expect to be allowed to refuse to serve any customer
>> who happened to own such a vehicle.
> In this context, you may be interested in this story:
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2007/01/19/7dd90b31-3b22-4e90-83d9-ecd7f428dcdf.lpf
LOL!
michaeld
That's a very good point. I do think though that, if it can be reasonably
avoided, children should not be pushed into fighting such cultural
battles. I would view the main objective as smashing the cultural racism -
and ideally the law in question would be liberalized after that is done.
The only case I might want to liberalize that law immediately was if I
thought that this in itself was a vital part of beating the overall
cultural racism (as opposed to something that could just be corrected at
the end of the process).
It is actually highly plausible, in the case you mention, that
liberalizing the adoption laws may be an extremely important part of
defeating the overall racism - maybe such laws themselves legitimize and
thus promulgate the current culture. So on balance I may well be in favour
of immediate liberalization in your scenario. On the other hand it is much
less clear to me that any cultural homophobia that exists today is
legitimized and promulgated by any opposition to single sex parenting. In
fact it's possible to be opposed to single sex parenting without being
remotely homophobic. In contrast I can't see how one can be opposed to
adoption by blacks without being racist.
Simon Robinson
> An opposing argument is that this new law does effectively bring the
> condition "If you wish to keep doing this good thing, you must do so on
> these conditions". Given this, the threat from the church groups of
> closing down seems quite applicable.
>
> If someone mandated that I did something I disagree with in the process
> of my normal activities I'd be quite upset.
Indeed. And if the Government were proposing a law that made people do
something they disagreed with - for example, if they were proposing a
law compelling everyone, including Christians, to engage in gay sex,
then that would be very bad, and I'm sure just about everyone on ukrc
would be massively opposed to it.
But ISTM there's a pretty big difference between compelling someone to
do X that they don't agree with and compelling them to deal with other
people who happen themselves to do X. (Though I'd concede in principle
that that difference could get fuzzy if your beliefs include some belief
along the lines that cooperating in other people doing X is wrong or if
you believe dealing with other people encourages X and is wrong -
perhaps that fuzziness is where this debate is?)
Simon
http://www.simonrobinson.com
Simon Robinson
> Catholic agencies do tend to deal with a very high proportion of 'difficult
> to place' children: in some cases almost all the children they place are in
> this category.
>
> That is one of the reasons they are so concerned over this legislation.
> Many of these children are in the categories where the nature of the
> adoptive family is critical: placement where there are both male and female
> parents, and often where there are non-adopted older children as part of
> the family is of major importance. However, requiring such criteria would
> break the proposed laws.
Do you know why? Offhand it seems very plausible to me that having older
children in the famility could be very important, but I'm struggling to
see what difference it would make if the older children are non-adopted.
I'm also unclear why it would be particularly important to have both
male and female parents in this case? (I can see an argument for
requiring two parents and hence for discriminating against single parent
families: Two people presumably can better share and support each other
in bringing up the 'difficult to place' child, but I can't see why the
gender of the parents should be crucial).
Simon Robinson
> What gets me is the hypocrisy of it all. How many couples have been
> turned down because they were too old at 40 or too overweight and
> unhealthy. Is the goverment going to be as diligent in equality in these
> areas as well? I doubt it because it is not the "sacred cow" of
> homosexual acceptance.
Nah, ISTM The real hypocrisy is this: If you want to bring up a child,
and you choose to get the child through adoption, then you, rightly,
face all manner of checks on your suitability as parents, your ability
to bring up the child etc. If you choose to get the child through
shagging someone then (in the absence of a custody battle and short of
actually abusing the child) you get the child to bring up as you please,
with no checks, no matter how unsuitable a parent you might make, how
poor a role model you might give, etc. etc. (Including: No matter if
you subsequently decide you're gay ;-) )
(Don't get me wrong, I can see why the situation is as it is, but it's
still pretty inconsistent and hypocritical IMO. :-) )
Richard Corfield
>
> In any case, enforcing a requirement to treat homosexual couples
> equally with heterosexual couples is simply unnecessary. If the
> government doesn't think that the Catholic agencies are doing a good
> job, they can simply stop using them - the agencies would have no work
> if children were not referred to them by local authorities. If the
> government doesn't believe that the Catholic agencies' current
> policies are in the best interests of the children, then they can use
> other agencies with different policies (or give more resources to
> state-run agencies so that they don't need to outsource placement). On
> the other hand, if they agree that the agencies are doing their best
> for the children, then forcing a significant policy change onto them
> smacks of political expediency rather than being motivated by genuine
> concern for the rights of those involved.
I wonder if this side effect was not considered when the law was drafted,
so now we're seeing the fallout and debate that should hopefully help
our country to produce sensible laws. An example like this would make
an earlier Labour proposal to allow ministers to enact laws without such
debate quite worrying.
Did you see the article on the BBC suggesting that local authorities
may be increasing the amount of children entering the system in order
to achieve targets specified in terms of absolute numbers of children
placed? How worrying is it as a parent to think that health workers or
even teachers and medical staff have this power to take your child away?
It sounds like there's some mitigation in the form of the courts, though
one thing mentioned in the BBC article is that parents who lose children
this way are not allowed to publicly comment on it.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>David Aldred wrote:
>> Catholic agencies do tend to deal with a very high proportion of 'difficult
>> to place' children: in some cases almost all the children they place are in
>> this category.
>>
>> That is one of the reasons they are so concerned over this legislation.
>> Many of these children are in the categories where the nature of the
>> adoptive family is critical: placement where there are both male and female
>> parents, and often where there are non-adopted older children as part of
>> the family is of major importance. However, requiring such criteria would
>> break the proposed laws.
>
>Do you know why? Offhand it seems very plausible to me that having older
>children in the famility could be very important, but I'm struggling to
>see what difference it would make if the older children are non-adopted.
It's part of the motivation for adopting. A lot of people who are
unable to have children of their own choose to adopt instead, but in
such a case it's hard to tell how much the motivation is personal
fulfilment ("I want a child") and how much is a desire to benefit the
adoptee. This may not be an issue with most adoptions (and there's
certainly nothing wrong with wanting a child, per se), but it can be
an important factor in adoptions of hard-to-plaace children who
require more than the usual level of care from people who are
more-than-averagely motivated by altruism rather than a desire to be a
"normal" family. Where a couple already have their own, natural
children but are also seeking to adopt other children with such needs,
that's usually a positive indicator.
>I'm also unclear why it would be particularly important to have both
>male and female parents in this case? (I can see an argument for
>requiring two parents and hence for discriminating against single parent
>families: Two people presumably can better share and support each other
>in bringing up the 'difficult to place' child, but I can't see why the
>gender of the parents should be crucial).
It's already pretty conclusively established that, on average,
two-parent families are much better for children than single-parent
families[1]. But one of the things we don't really know, yet, is
precisely why this should be the case - is it simply numbers, or is
the diversity of male and female role models important? If the former,
then a gay couple is as good as a heterosexual couple (if you
disregard moral objections to homosexuality itself), but if it's the
latter then a gay couple is less than optimal. And, if it is the
latter (and what little information we do have tends to suggest that
this is the case), or even if we have good reason to believe that it
may be the latter, then it's entirely reasonable for an adoption
agency to take a prospective adoptor's sexuality into account. This is
particularly the case when dealing with children for whom the choice
of adoptive family is particularly crucial.
[1] See elsewhere for the usual disclaimer to such a statement.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.MineOfUseless.info - everything you never needed to know!
"Well it's true today"
Peter Ashby
> Alan Zanker wrote:
>
> > However, a couple in a same-sex relationship would be rejected for that
> > reason without further consideration, and this is where it is obvious
> > that prejudice outweighs judgement.
>
> My understanding is that there are many more couples who wish to adopt
> than children needing adoption.
It is my understanding that the opposite is the case. This is because
very few babies come up for adoption and they are the most sought after.
Most children now put up for adoption are not babies or even infants but
older. It is these who are hard to place since most people want babies.
It perhaps would be better to say there is a mistmatch between supply
and demand in terms of criteria rather than absolute numbers.
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net
Peter Ashby
Indeed, there is also the distinct possilbility that Catholic gay
couples may wish to adopt and being culturally Catholic wish to use a
Catholic agency. I am not aware of anything that stops Catholics being
homosexual.
Mark Goodge
to keyboard and typed:
>On 2007-01-26, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> In any case, enforcing a requirement to treat homosexual couples
>> equally with heterosexual couples is simply unnecessary. If the
>> government doesn't think that the Catholic agencies are doing a good
>> job, they can simply stop using them - the agencies would have no work
>> if children were not referred to them by local authorities. If the
>> government doesn't believe that the Catholic agencies' current
>> policies are in the best interests of the children, then they can use
>> other agencies with different policies (or give more resources to
>> state-run agencies so that they don't need to outsource placement). On
>> the other hand, if they agree that the agencies are doing their best
>> for the children, then forcing a significant policy change onto them
>> smacks of political expediency rather than being motivated by genuine
>> concern for the rights of those involved.
>
>I wonder if this side effect was not considered when the law was drafted,
>so now we're seeing the fallout and debate that should hopefully help
>our country to produce sensible laws. An example like this would make
>an earlier Labour proposal to allow ministers to enact laws without such
>debate quite worrying.
Indeed.
>Did you see the article on the BBC suggesting that local authorities
>may be increasing the amount of children entering the system in order
>to achieve targets specified in terms of absolute numbers of children
>placed? How worrying is it as a parent to think that health workers or
>even teachers and medical staff have this power to take your child away?
>It sounds like there's some mitigation in the form of the courts, though
>one thing mentioned in the BBC article is that parents who lose children
>this way are not allowed to publicly comment on it.
I haven't seen it, but if true it certainly is worrying, for the
reasons you suggest. And it certainly is true that the media are not
normally allowed to report on proceedings or decisiosn of the family
courts, so miscarriages of justice there rarely get the airing they
deserve.
But this also reminds me of another target-setting policy that
backfired in a similar way: the decision to insist that all people
calling a GP for an appointment should be able to be seen within a
certain number of days. In order to meet these targets, many surgeries
and clinics have resorted to two practices which actually make things
worse, not better. Firstly, they refuse to accept routine appointments
made in advance, as the targets don't distinguish between routine and
immediate needs (so if you want to call in next month for a routine
checkup, you can't book the appointment until a few days before -
which you then can't be certain of getting, so you can't book the time
off work until you've got the appointment, but then you have problems
with company policies saying that time off needs to be bookeed at
least a week in advance, etc....). And, secondly, when a practice has
reached its limit of appointments that can be made within the target
period, they simply stop making any more and insist that you call back
the next day to see if there's a slot free. So, in many cases, you
can't get an appointment at all unless you phone first thing in the
morning and hope that you're early enough in the queue. It's daft,
it's illogical and it's bad for patients, but it's an almost
inevitable result of a system which sets targets badly but insists
that they are met.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"The game is on again, a lover or a friend"
David Aldred
> David Aldred wrote:
>> Catholic agencies do tend to deal with a very high proportion of
>> 'difficult to place' children: in some cases almost all the children they
>> place are in this category.
>>
>> That is one of the reasons they are so concerned over this legislation.
>> Many of these children are in the categories where the nature of the
>> adoptive family is critical: placement where there are both male and
>> female parents, and often where there are non-adopted older children as
>> part of
>> the family is of major importance. However, requiring such criteria
>> would break the proposed laws.
>
> Do you know why? Offhand it seems very plausible to me that having older
> children in the famility could be very important, but I'm struggling to
> see what difference it would make if the older children are non-adopted.
> I'm also unclear why it would be particularly important to have both
> male and female parents in this case?
Two aspects seem to be involved. One is the availability of role models: an
older child is a role model for a younger one, and often a very influential
one.
When dealing with the more difficult to place children (who usually have
behavioural issues), it can be important that the whole adoptive family
should provide role models leading towards a functional (as opposed to
dysfunctional) behaviour pattern. This is considered more likely to be
achieved for first adoptions where the older child is not adopted (so where
a 'natural' family unit is the adopter, rather than just the parents.).
And (I understand - I'm not an expert in this and rely on friends who are
closely involved) there is evidence that children benefit directly from the
involvement of parents of both sexes, particularly in developing
appropriate responses to adults and other children of both sexes. The
connection between the absence of a father and male delinquency is often
raised, but there is also evidence that the absence of a mother is
relevant.
Whilst single-parent families can work, they do not generally work as well
as two-parent families: two parents of one sex may make up for the income
deficiency of most single-parent households, but they still do not provide
built-in relationships with people of both sexes.
--
David Aldred
David Aldred
>> has no say in the matter of who his/her adoptive parents are?)
>
> Out of interest, what would be your attitude if, hypothetically, we were
> coming out of a racist era in which black people had previously not been
> allowed to adopt children, and an argument being espoused by people
> against liberalising the law was 'but any child adopted by a black
> couple will face ridicule and abuse at the hands of their [racist] peers'?
>
That is one of the arguments used to justify the fact that race can legally
be a factor in adoption choices.
(ISTM odd that no-one in the media has yet challenged the 'it's just like
the race laws' mantra of various cabinet members on this: do they not know
that a limited race 'exception' applies for adoption (under the Children
and Adoption Act), or do they just hope no-one else knows?)
--
David Aldred
Michael J Davis
<em...@via.my.web.site> writes
>
>Indeed. And IF there were some compelling evidence that the fact of
>being brought up by a same-sex couple is sufficient to do serious harm
>to children, then ISTM there would be a good case on those grounds for
>an adoption agency viewing same-sexness as a big negative when deciding
>where to place a child. Do you have some such evidence?
>
>> No responsible adoption agency would allow a paedophile to adopt a young
>> child and if a law were to be passed directing that paedophiles should be
>> allowed to adopt, I would hope that Christian adoption agencies would refuse
>> to comply. The evil that we foresee from allowing homosexuals to adopt is
>> different but no less real, therefore we cannot comply with the law.
>
>What evil do you foresee? What evidence do you have that this evil is
>likely to happen?
I have no personal opinions, but you may like to see this statement:-
<quote>
What is the problem with adoption of children by gay couples?
When children are placed into families, they usually have been
significantly traumatised. Therefore, what is in the best interests of
the children needs to be paramount, rather than the 'rights' of
prospective parents.
A main concern about placing children with gay couples remains the
inherent instability of many same-sex partnerships. In a Dutch study,
the average length of a 'committed' homosexual partnership was only 1.5
years. Gay men had an average of eight partners a year outside of this
"committed" relationship. In a large survey of nearly 8,000 gays, 71% of
relationships did not last 8 years. Such an environment does not provide
the stability required for raising children, who already are
traumatised.
In a review of all the studies that purport to find no difference
between children raised in families by same-sex parents and parents of
different sex, major methodological flaws have been noted. Children
raised in same-sex parents are more likely to become sexually
promiscuous and are more likely to become homosexual themselves.
The marriage- based family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman
provides the best environment for rearing children. The government
should recognise this and not legislate further to undermine the
marriage-based family.
For a testimony of what it was like to grow up as a child in a gay
household please see the testimony of Dawn Stefanowicz on
www.dawnstefanowicz.com/dawntestimony.php
</quote>
From a Christian body that I support.
Once again the problem is that Christians are seen as homophobic, rather
than just averse to specific life styles.
I also think that we - as Christians - tend to be reactive rather than
promoting the fullness of the Christian way of life.
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Adam Funk
> I am against Sharia Law in this country, partly because it is a vicious
> nasty law system and mainly because it would amount to a separate government
> that would affect Muslims and non-Muslims in those parts of the country
> where it was imposed.
Haven't you made some statement in favour of imposing "Leviticus
laws"? (I could be mistaken.)
> No doubt, and I agree that not all opposite sex couples are suitable
> adopters. Same sex couples, however, are *never* suitable adopters.
Are you sure your opinions are derived from your religious beliefs, or
is it possible that you are especially enthusiastic about particular
passages that support prior prejudices?
Richard Corfield
One natural reaction is to say "If only they were software designers.
They'd be used to working out the logic of all this", though I remember
a set of adverts a while back showing people saying things like "If only
they were taxi drivers" and I expect similar for every job. I also know
that software designers have limits on how complex a system they can
model and these systems get complex.
Michael J Davis
<mich...@cantab.net> writes
>On the other hand it is much
>less clear to me that any cultural homophobia that exists today is
>legitimized and promulgated by any opposition to single sex parenting. In
>fact it's possible to be opposed to single sex parenting without being
>remotely homophobic. In contrast I can't see how one can be opposed to
>adoption by blacks without being racist.
I agree, Michael.
Just as many play the Islamophobic and racist cards in order to claim
sympathy when someone disagrees with radical Muslim views, so we find
the Homophobic card pulled out when someone disagrees with homosexual
practice.
Michael J Davis
<em...@via.my.web.site> writes
No that's not it. Hypothetical or not.
You may not agree, but the RCC believes that male homosexual
**practice** is morally wrong, and gives the wrong environment and
example for children.
(I have posted elsewhere some suggestion that homosexual relationships
are many times less stable than heterosexual couples, but that isn't the
issue here. But it is an issue in deciding where to place children.)
Considering couples have legally been rejected for adoption by some
agencies, because they are over forty, it does seem we are in a very odd
world.
Michael J Davis
<em...@via.my.web.site> writes
>Tony Gillam wrote:
>> What gets me is the hypocrisy of it all. How many couples have been
>>turned down because they were too old at 40 or too overweight and
>>unhealthy. Is the goverment going to be as diligent in equality in
>>these areas as well? I doubt it because it is not the "sacred cow" of
>>homosexual acceptance.
>
>Nah, ISTM The real hypocrisy is this: If you want to bring up a child,
>and you choose to get the child through adoption, then you, rightly,
>face all manner of checks on your suitability as parents, your ability
>to bring up the child etc.
Yes, but that child has already has some form of trauma - even if it be
heathy. Many children put up for adoption today are already
disadvantaged, and need all the help they can get.
>If you choose to get the child through shagging someone then (in the
>absence of a custody battle and short of actually abusing the child)
>you get the child to bring up as you please, with no checks, no matter
>how unsuitable a parent you might make, how poor a role model you might
>give, etc. etc. (Including: No matter if you subsequently decide
>you're gay ;-) )
Sure, that's the traditional way. What are you - some kind of woolly
do-gooding social worker? ;-)
>(Don't get me wrong, I can see why the situation is as it is, but it's
>still pretty inconsistent and hypocritical IMO. :-) )
I blame God, myself. You think He'd have invented a proper committee to
vet parents first.
So, you have an ANSWER?
Mike
Tony Gillam
I agree that the suitability of some who bring children into this world
leaves much to be desired. Can't see us being able to get some form of
licensing though. ;-)
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Mark Goodge
to keyboard and typed:
>On 2007-01-26, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
It's not as if it's rocket science, though. In this particular case,
the government could have prevented gaming of the system in this way
by two simple amendments to the targets: a) measure the target from
when the patient first requests an appointment rather than when the
appointment is actually booked, so "we don't have any slots left,
please call back tomorrow" won't help meet the target, and b) exclude
from the target any appointments where the patient explicitly requests
a date beyond the target period, so routine appointments booked in
advance don't bugger up the stats.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.OrangeHedgehog.com - Useful stuff for the web
"Wherever life may take me, I know that it won't break me"
Ian Smith
>
> worse, not better. Firstly, they refuse to accept routine appointments
> made in advance, as the targets don't distinguish between routine and
> immediate needs (so if you want to call in next month for a routine
> checkup, you can't book the appointment until a few days before -
> which you then can't be certain of getting, so you can't book the time
> off work until you've got the appointment, but then you have problems
> with company policies saying that time off needs to be bookeed at
> least a week in advance, etc....).
Indeed.
My surgery won't give any appointments other than same day. I have
medication which needs periodic renewal, for which I'm supposed to see
a GP. My surgery opens its phone lines after I normally set off for
work. By the time I get to work, the appointments for the day are
fully taken.
I need to stay at home such that I'm going to be late for work, then
even if I've got the number ready in speed-dial the chance of getting
anything either soon or last thing in the day is tiny. Typically I'm
offered early-to-mid-afternoon appointments. So then, do I travel in
to work (arriving an hour late), get about an hour or two's working
time, then set off home again, see GP and then by the time I'd get
back to work, it's the end of the day?
Actually, I take a whole day off work in order to get about 1 minute
with a GP. Who says 'oh, ok', and gives me the same repeat
prescription. Generally, I'm better informed about what I need than
the GP - they just write out what I ask for.
Meanwhile, if you actually moan about this, the receptionist warns
you that the senior partner is fully behind the appointment scheme (he
would be wouldn't he - his performance related 200 grand a year
depends on it), and troublemakers will be removed from the practice
list.
And until very recently, you're not allowed to register with a GP near
your place of work, it needs to near your home. And there's just the
one GP practice in my home town.
Aaaaaaaaaggghhhhhhhhhh.
If I ever meet whoever came up with this spiffing wheeze of a policy,
I hope there's someone there to hold me back.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Simon Robinson
> In message <51uph6F...@mid.individual.net>, Simon Robinson
>> If you choose to get the child through shagging someone then (in the
>> absence of a custody battle and short of actually abusing the child)
>> you get the child to bring up as you please, with no checks, no matter
>> how unsuitable a parent you might make, how poor a role model you
>> might give, etc. etc. (Including: No matter if you subsequently
>> decide you're gay ;-) )
>
> Sure, that's the traditional way. What are you - some kind of woolly
> do-gooding social worker? ;-)
Of course, why else do you think I went into computer programming as a
career? ;-)
>> (Don't get me wrong, I can see why the situation is as it is, but it's
>> still pretty inconsistent and hypocritical IMO. :-) )
>
> I blame God, myself. You think He'd have invented a proper committee to
> vet parents first.
>
> So, you have an ANSWER?
No. I'm just identifying the inconsistency without providing any answer. :)
The only thing I would say is that I think the current social attitude,
that if a baby is genetically your baby, that gives you the automatic
right to bring him up and basically determine all aspects of his
upbringing, is possibly unhelpful - or at least, has been taken to too
extreme an extent. I also suspect that current social attitudes in some
cases lean too much towards viewing having children and bringing them up
as a right rather than as a responsibility (to those who choose to take
it on, and shared with the wider community).
michaeld
[...]
> >In
> >fact it's possible to be opposed to single sex parenting without being
> >remotely homophobic. In contrast I can't see how one can be opposed to
> >adoption by blacks without being racist.
>
> I agree, Michael.
>
> Just as many play the Islamophobic and racist cards in order to claim
> sympathy when someone disagrees with radical Muslim views, so we find
> the Homophobic card pulled out when someone disagrees with homosexual
> practice.
Although I can't speak for the Roman Catholic church of course, here I had
something different in mind. Namely it is possible to have no moral
opposition at all to homosexual practice or partnerships and yet still to
think that there might be significant disadvantages for a child to have
single-sex parents.
(I now see why some here dislike the word "homophobia"... because it could
be taken either to mean "being opposed to the homosexual act" or "hating
gays". I was actually using the former meaning here.)
Kendall K. Down
Thanks, Mike.
No doubt Simon or Gareth will be along in a moment to tell us that they know
of a homosexual couple who have been together for the last 150 years. If
they do, I'll remind them of what it is that exceptions prove.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Kendall K. Down
Simon Robinson <em...@via.my.web.site> wrote:
> > No, that would never be the case, any more than placing a child with a kind
> > and caring paedophile would be in the child's best interests.
> Why wouldn't it ever be best for the child to be placed with a same-sex
> couple? The reasons for not placing a child with a known, convicted,
> paedophile, are obvious. But offhand I can't see any strong reason for
> not placing a child with a same-sex couple, so your analogy looks pretty
> strange to me.
Well, let's consider a few more examples. I would say that it is never in
the child's best interests for it to be placed with
a drug addict
an alcoholic
Osama bin Laden
a criminal
The list could go on. Many reasons can be advanced - some of those I mention
might mistreat the child, for example - but it seems to me that the factor
they all have in common is undesirable behaviour which might be transmitted
to the child. If you believe (as I do) that homosexual behaviour is wrong,
it can never be right to place a child in a situation where he will be
influenced at the very least to regard that behaviour as right.
Kendall K. Down
Simon Robinson <em...@via.my.web.site> wrote:
> Nah, ISTM The real hypocrisy is this: If you want to bring up a child,
> and you choose to get the child through adoption, then you, rightly,
> face all manner of checks on your suitability as parents, your ability
> to bring up the child etc. If you choose to get the child through
> shagging someone then (in the absence of a custody battle and short of
> actually abusing the child) you get the child to bring up as you please,
> with no checks, no matter how unsuitable a parent you might make, how
> poor a role model you might give, etc. etc. (Including: No matter if
> you subsequently decide you're gay ;-) )
Well, if you wish to start a campaign for compulsory chastity belts for all
under a certain age and without an evidence-based qualification in
child-rearing, you will have one eager backer here.
Kendall K. Down
Simon Robinson <em...@via.my.web.site> wrote:
> Out of interest, what would be your attitude if, hypothetically, we were
> coming out of a racist era in which black people had previously not been
> allowed to adopt children, and an argument being espoused by people
> against liberalising the law was 'but any child adopted by a black
> couple will face ridicule and abuse at the hands of their [racist] peers'?
I think it would be a legitimate consideration - though the situation is not
exactly similar as you could simply ensure that black parents adopted black
babies. In the absence of a test for the "gay gene", I don't see how you
could ensure that homosexual parents get homosexual babies.
Robert Marshall
> In message <HzqMRfCC...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid>
> Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I have no personal opinions, but you may like to see this
>> statement:- <quote> What is the problem with adoption of children
>> by gay couples? When children are placed into families, they
>> usually have been significantly traumatised. Therefore, what is in
>> the best interests of the children needs to be paramount, rather
>> than the 'rights' of prospective parents. A main concern about
>> placing children with gay couples remains the inherent instability
>> of many same-sex partnerships. In a Dutch study, the average length
>> of a 'committed' homosexual partnership was only 1.5 years. Gay men
>> had an average of eight partners a year outside of this "committed"
>> relationship. In a large survey of nearly 8,000 gays, 71% of
>> relationships did not last 8 years.
For the UK the average length of marriage for divorcees was 11.5 years
http://www.999-life.com/marriage-england-wales.htm
so not much difference with marriage _where there is a divorce, and to get
figures on the other one has to wait for death...
Apparently Mike cites an on-line survey - so some questions about the
way the selection population was 'selected' then.
And so you'd have no problem with those whose relationships lasted longer?
>> Such an environment does not provide the stability required for
>> raising children, who already are traumatised. In a review of all
>> the studies that purport to find no difference between children
>> raised in families by same-sex parents and parents of different
>> sex, major methodological flaws have been noted. Children raised in
>> same-sex parents are more likely to become sexually promiscuous and
>> are more likely to become homosexual themselves.
I'm sure no flaws could be found in this last survey :-)
There's some basis for the second statement - though were the adoptees
selected because of the nature of the child - and witness the comedy
of David Holloway talking about the 'evidence' on Radio 4's PM this
week.
I'd guess that 'become homosexual' would equate to 'become sexually
promiscuous' according so some, so 'case proven' :-(
>
> No doubt Simon or Gareth will be along in a moment to tell us that
> they know of a homosexual couple who have been together for the last
> 150 years. If they do, I'll remind them of what it is that
> exceptions prove.
I'm neither Simon nor Gareth so I can state that I know of no
homosexual couples that have been together for 150 years.
But I do know of 2 who have been together for more than 20 - how many
exceptions does it have to be? There are also some surveys which
rather contradict the one that Mike has selected. You select your
survey and you take your choice....
Robert
--
Conformity means death for any community. A loyal opposition is a
necessity in any community Karol Wojtyla (1969)
Links and things http://rmstar.blogspot.com/
Michael J Davis
<em...@via.my.web.site> writes
Moving on to the wider issues - is the way the law (as implemented by
Social Services) prevents, for instance, close relatives from taking on
care of the children, eg. on the death of parents, children are taken
into care rather than being placed with, say, the grandparents.
It seems a mess. And all this government seems to do is pass *more*
legislation.
Michael J Davis
<i...@astounding.org.uk> writes
Sympathies. Ours was like that when the system was introduced, but it
has now introduced two improvements (can't remember why, but a number
got involved, including IIRC, our MP).
a) Booking appointments further ahead, and
b) hotline for repeat prescriptions (providing you have requested your
medication to be on that list.)
It works OK now, and my blood pressure has reduced!! ;-) (Pity really as
I suffer from low BO!)
Richard Corfield
You could measure deviation from the required appointment time, so if
the patient books a month ahead then the target will measure how much
you deviate from that required date, either by rushing them in early
or delaying them. Either could be a problem if it's something like a
routine injection.
To make it stronger you could square the deviation, so we're going for
least mean square approach. Ideally you'd need some weighting though so
more important ones can push less important ones out of the way.
Richard Corfield
>
> You can even bring them up to believe in magic too. Of course some adoption
> agencies even get to choose the form of the magic you are required to give
> instruction in. Do they take the child away if you get converted to a
> different form of magic?
It seems to be social pressure that you bring children up to believe in
Santa Clause. Even those of Muslim and Hindu friends are doing this.
Kendall K. Down
Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Haven't you made some statement in favour of imposing "Leviticus
> laws"? (I could be mistaken.)
I think you must be mistaken. *If* we were a theocracy - which we aren't - I
think that the laws God would give us would bear a striking resemblance to
those in Leviticus, but there are many details of the Levitical laws which
are entirely inappropriate for an industrial socity. Mind you, I think the
death penalty for homosexuality might well be among the laws we would get.
> Are you sure your opinions are derived from your religious beliefs, or
> is it possible that you are especially enthusiastic about particular
> passages that support prior prejudices?
No, because I have no particular distaste for the practice of homosexuality;
it's not for me, thanks, but if someone else finds a stubbly chin
attractive, jolly good luck to him. However God has forbidden it, so it is
banned for Christians.
Paul Roberts
> In message <251q84-...@news.ducksburg.com>
> Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Haven't you made some statement in favour of imposing "Leviticus
>> laws"? (I could be mistaken.)
>
> I think you must be mistaken. *If* we were a theocracy - which we
> aren't - I think that the laws God would give us would bear a
> striking resemblance to those in Leviticus, but there are many
> details of the Levitical laws which are entirely inappropriate for an
> industrial socity. Mind you, I think the death penalty for
> homosexuality might well be among the laws we would get.
Which says considerably more about your particular prejudices than it does
about God's views on the subject.
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address
Gareth McCaughan
[me:]
> > Imagine a world in which the RC adoption agencies just do
> > what's best for the child even if that means placing her
> > with a same-sex couple.
[Ken:]
> No, that would never be the case, any more than placing a child with a kind
> and caring paedophile would be in the child's best interests.
In that case there's no problem with this legislation. I'm sure
it doesn't say that adoption agencies have to have a certain
quota of same-sex couples, or that they have to place children
with such couples when there are better families available.
I find it interesting, though, that you apparently think that
same-sex couples are *so* awful that placing a child with
such a couple could be the best option. Your comparison
with paedophiles is particularly revealing.
> Would you consider that a child taken under Fagin's wing was better off than
> one left on the streets? (And remember that the child on the streets might
> starve to death - but the one taken in by Fagin might get sent to
> Australia!)
Actually, I probably would, yes. The analogy is of course
fatuous and unpleasant, but that's hardly a surprise.
--
g
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
news:11699253...@ucsnew2.ncl.ac.uk...
I thought we have God's view, very plainly taught in Leviticus, and the
terrible punishment that was to be bought upon such evil wicked men, in the
days when God ordered the lives of the Children of Israel.
Lev. 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both
of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;
their blood shall be upon them."
Jeff...
Then we have brother Jude's opinion inspired by Almighty God.
Jude 1:6 "They are held in deepest darkness for judgment on the great day.
7 Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them
committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities, serve as an
example of the punishment of eternal fire." (ISV)
Gareth McCaughan
[I asked:]
> > In your opinion, is it better for a child to go unadopted
> > than to be adopted by a same-sex couple? (What happens to
> > them, if so? Life in an orphanage, or something?)Yes, it is better.
[Ken:]
> No doubt you will dream up some counter example where the unadopted child is
> kept chained in a dark basement and forced to pick oakum twenty-five hours a
> day. Allow me to say in advance that I shall adopt your attitude towards
> such extreme examples.
I don't think any extreme examples are required.
--
g
Gareth McCaughan
an egregious bit of format-screwage by Google Groups.
So, although I apparently owned up to writing ...
> > In your opinion, is it better for a child to go unadopted
> > than to be adopted by a same-sex couple? (What happens to
> > them, if so? Life in an orphanage, or something?)Yes, it is better.
... in reality, the words "Yes, it is better" were Ken's and not mine.
My apologies for any confusion.
--
g
Gareth McCaughan
[me:]
> > This isn't discriminating against Christians. You appear to be
> > saying: "All those people who were previously saying that there's
> > no need for Christians to have a special exemption so that they
> > can be discriminatory when others aren't allowed to are still
> > saying that there's no need for Christians to have a special
> > exemption so that they can be discriminatory when others aren't
> > allowed to." How very inconsistent of them.
[Ken:]
> No. The proponents of the law were asserting that it would pose no problems
> for Christians (and other religious groups). We declared that it would and
> cited B&Bs as an example of a situation where the law would create a
> problem.
You appear to think that that contradicts something I said,
but I can't work out what or why.
> Certainly Christians are nasty discriminatory people: some of the things
> against which we discriminate are in harmony with the irrational prejudices
> of society, some are contrary to society. We do not accept society or
> fashion as the arbiters of right and wrong: if something is wrong we
> discriminate against it - whether society agrees with us or not.
If only that were true.
--
g
Gareth McCaughan
> Well, there is considerable statistical evidence that children do
> better in traditional, two-parent families.
Pointers?
And is the evidence for *traditional* two-parent families
or just for two-parent families, per se? Bringing up a child
is a labour-intensive undertaking, and I can very very easily
believe it's generally done much better when there isn't one
person trying to do everything and provide an income too.
(I wonder how single parents of independent means do?
But there are too many other things that would be very
different from the average for such people.)
--
g
Michael J Davis
Marshall <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>
>> In message <HzqMRfCC...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid>
>> Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I have no personal opinions, but you may like to see this
>>> statement:- <quote> What is the problem with adoption of children
>>> by gay couples? When children are placed into families, they
>>> usually have been significantly traumatised. Therefore, what is in
>>> the best interests of the children needs to be paramount, rather
>>> than the 'rights' of prospective parents. A main concern about
>>> placing children with gay couples remains the inherent instability
>>> of many same-sex partnerships. In a Dutch study, the average length
>>> of a 'committed' homosexual partnership was only 1.5 years. Gay men
>>> had an average of eight partners a year outside of this "committed"
>>> relationship. In a large survey of nearly 8,000 gays, 71% of
>>> relationships did not last 8 years.
>
>For the UK the average length of marriage for divorcees was 11.5 years
>http://www.999-life.com/marriage-england-wales.htm
>so not much difference with marriage _where there is a divorce, and to get
>figures on the other one has to wait for death...
I haven't got the figures for RC's - I think it's a bit better.
>
>Apparently Mike cites an on-line survey - so some questions about the
>way the selection population was 'selected' then.
>
>And so you'd have no problem with those whose relationships lasted longer?
>
>>> Such an environment does not provide the stability required for
>>> raising children, who already are traumatised. In a review of all
>>> the studies that purport to find no difference between children
>>> raised in families by same-sex parents and parents of different
>>> sex, major methodological flaws have been noted. Children raised in
>>> same-sex parents are more likely to become sexually promiscuous and
>>> are more likely to become homosexual themselves.
>
>I'm sure no flaws could be found in this last survey :-)
>
>There's some basis for the second statement - though were the adoptees
>selected because of the nature of the child - and witness the comedy
>of David Holloway talking about the 'evidence' on Radio 4's PM this
>week.
>
>I'd guess that 'become homosexual' would equate to 'become sexually
>promiscuous' according so some, so 'case proven' :-(
I can't think why you said that.
>> No doubt Simon or Gareth will be along in a moment to tell us that
>> they know of a homosexual couple who have been together for the last
>> 150 years. If they do, I'll remind them of what it is that
>> exceptions prove.
>
>I'm neither Simon nor Gareth so I can state that I know of no
>homosexual couples that have been together for 150 years.
>
>But I do know of 2 who have been together for more than 20 - how many
>exceptions does it have to be? There are also some surveys which
>rather contradict the one that Mike has selected. You select your
>survey and you take your choice....
I haven't selected any. Thanks. I quoted something in circulation. Of
course there are other psov. But the fact is that the RC agencies do
place something like 15% of the more 'difficult' adoptees currently. And
provide longer term support. It seems generally regarded that they are
quite successful.
see Bishop Vincent Nichol's letter in todays Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2568062,00.html
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> Well, there is considerable statistical evidence that children do
>> better in traditional, two-parent families.
>
>Pointers?
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php
http://www.azcentral.com/families/articles/0913marriagehealth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-parent_family
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2688935.stm
>And is the evidence for *traditional* two-parent families
>or just for two-parent families, per se? Bringing up a child
>is a labour-intensive undertaking, and I can very very easily
>believe it's generally done much better when there isn't one
>person trying to do everything and provide an income too.
>(I wonder how single parents of independent means do?
>But there are too many other things that would be very
>different from the average for such people.)
We don't know the answers to those questions. So until we do, the
sensible option is minimise risk by placing children in two-parent
heterosexual couples as far as possible.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.OrangeHedgehog.com - Useful stuff for the web
"Wouldn't you love somebody to love?"
David Aldred
> In that case there's no problem with this legislation. I'm sure
> it doesn't say that adoption agencies have to have a certain
> quota of same-sex couples, or that they have to place children
> with such couples when there are better families available.
But it doesn't allow the criteria to discriminate against gay couples: so
seeking specifically a male-and-female couple to adopt any one child will
be illegal (even where that is demonstrably in the best interests of the
child).
--
David Aldred