Equality complaint threatens future of UK's last Catholic adoption agency

[peduzzi89]

When the birth rate among homosexuals exceeds the heterosexual birth rate I’ll pay attention to you.

I’ve heard that statement a million times, but I’m not sure exactly what it has to do with my specific comment.

 

[peduzzi89]

When vice is allowed to peacefully coexist with virtue, the later is corrupted.

Well that’s not the point of this topic. You’re never going to eliminate gay people or their desire to adopt children. The point of this topic is the idea of the moving forward of gay rights forcing religious organizations to adopt out to gay couples. And I’m just making it clear that many of us, perhaps even the majority in my experience, who support gay rights, do NOT support religious organizations being forced to adopt out to gay couples.

 

[fix]

Well that’s not the point of this topic. You’re never going to eliminate gay people or their desire to adopt children. The point of this topic is the idea of the moving forward of gay rights forcing religious organizations to adopt out to gay couples. And I’m just making it clear that many of us, perhaps even the majority in my experience, who support gay rights, do NOT support religious organizations being forced to adopt out to gay couples.

When immoral laws exist you are going to have problems. Just a matter of time.

 

[peduzzi89]

When immoral laws exist you are going to have problems. Just a matter of time.

That’s still not the point of this topic. We all know the Church’s views on whether or not gay couples should be allowed to adopt children, so it’s redundant for you to keep stating it. But unless you want to move to an island where everyone is Catholic and follows all teachings of the catechism down to the letter, you have to deal with the reality of coexisting with the rest of the majority of the country whose minds you simply cannot change. If you want the freedom of religion amendment to allow the Church to deny adoption to same sex couples even when the law permits it, then you HAVE to allow others whose religious beliefs don’t prohibit it to do so or it’s not religious freedom at all.

Come on. now, I’m a gay rights advocate saying, “no, you should not be forced to adopt children to gay couples if your religious beliefs prohibit you from doing so.” THAT is the point of this topic.

If you want to continue making the point you’re making, start a thread entitled “why it’s wrong for gay couples to adopt children.” But in this thread, we’re talking about an area where it’s done. Over. They can legally adopt. You can’t change it - and now, should we force churches to do it? Again, my answer - no.

 

[fix]

That’s still not the point of this topic. We all know the Church’s views on whether or not gay couples should be allowed to adopt children, so it’s redundant for you to keep stating it. But unless you want to move to an island where everyone is Catholic and follows all teachings of the catechism down to the letter, you have to deal with the reality of coexisting with the rest of the majority of the country whose minds you simply cannot change. If you want the freedom of religion amendment to allow the Church to deny adoption to same sex couples even when the law permits it, then you HAVE to allow others whose religious beliefs don’t prohibit it to do so or it’s not religious freedom at all.

Come on. now, I’m a gay rights advocate saying, “no, you should not be forced to adopt children to gay couples if your religious beliefs prohibit you from doing so.” THAT is the point of this topic.

If you want to continue making the point you’re making, start a thread entitled “why it’s wrong for gay couples to adopt children.” But in this thread, we’re talking about an area where it’s done. Over. They can legally adopt. You can’t change it - and now, should we force churches to do it? Again, my answer - no.

You seem a tad confused on a few items.

I am pointing out that immoral laws cause problems. That is directly related to the OP.

That the Church would be put in the position She is in because of these immoral laws is an example of the point I am making.

As for the Cristian faith and its relationship to Western democracy we have a long history and the two are very compatible. That is not evidence every other religion has the same compatibility.

That an immoral law cannot be changed is like saying abortion is legal get over it. Slavery is legal get over it.

 

[CollegeStinks]

I’m sorry Penduzzi, but it is not simply “the Church’s view,” it is the truth. If you want to chalk up Catholicism as just another worldview, why in the world do you call yourself Catholic? Truly you do not believe what you say you believe if you feel that each and every person can have his own version of truth. What is only true for some (and not others) is not true at all. Truth is true to all, by the very definition of the word “truth.”

Catholic doctrines are held by Catholics as being the truth. You cannot be a Catholic if you reject them.

Your idea of co-existence with a grave evil is entirely effeminate and weak willed. Even if I was the last Catholic on this planet, I would stand tall in defiance of your so called majority. Let them make a martyr of me. I would never cooperate with such wickedness. I would oppose them down to my last breath. I’d rather be sentenced to death.

That is what Jesus did. He was not some sissy who laid down and said it was ok for people to do and believe whatever they wanted. He was not tolerant. He was not nice. He was not Mr. Rogers. He was God, and he was a man.

 

[peduzzi89]

You seem a tad confused on a few items.

I am pointing out that immoral laws cause problems. That is directly related to the OP.

That the Church would be put in the position She is in because of these immoral laws is an example of the point I am making.

As for the Cristian faith and its relationship to Western democracy we have a long history and the two are very compatible. That is not evidence every other religion has the same compatibility.

That an immoral law cannot be changed is like saying abortion is legal get over it. Slavery is legal get over it.

Nothing you said was confusing to me. I know you are pointing out that immoral laws cause problems. I’m simply saying that what you believe is the immorality of the law allowing gay couples to adopt is not in its entirety responsible for the problem that is the topic of this post. The responsibility lies in certain people not separating laws that govern in a secular way, and laws which protect religious organizations. I’m getting the impression that because we disagree on larger issues of gay rights, that we cannot find any common ground whatsoever, such as the fact that we both agree that it’s wrong for this organization to be forced to adopt to gay couples. That common ground is the very reason why the Christian faith and Western democracy can coexist as you say they can. And you’re actually contradicting yourself because in an earlier post you said it was problematic for vice to be allowed to coexist peacefully with virtue.

The comparison to abortion and slavery is not a fair one. In those situations, you’re taking away fundamental human rights from a person without that person’s consent. Our government does not recognize having a biological mother and father raise a child in the same way that it does life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The comparison is even further off when you’re speaking of two same-sex, consenting adults marrying. A fairer comparison would be that of divorce. The Church believes that divorce and remarriage is an extremely mortal sin - one that is condemned in the scripture far more often and directly than homosexuality. Yet she doesn’t engage in these same types of political battles about whether people who divorce and remarry have children even though they are adulterers and, according to the Church, just as sinful as homosexuals. Sure, you can say that you think it shouldn’t be legal. But if it weren’t, there would be thousands of couples who separate anyway, creating all sorts of legal messes that would make the lives of children involved much more miserable than if they were just allowed to legally separate and move on peacefully. The reality of the situation is that them getting divorced does not infringe upon another person’s life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness the same way that abortion or slavery do - and neither does same sex marriage or adoption. I would make the argument that it’s actually prohibiting those things that infringes on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[peduzzi89]

I’m sorry Penduzzi, but it is not simply “the Church’s view,” it is the truth. If you want to chalk up Catholicism as just another worldview, why in the world do you call yourself Catholic? Truly you do not believe what you say you believe if you feel that each and every person can have his own version of truth. What is only true for some (and not others) is not true at all. Truth is true to all, by the very definition of the word “truth.”

Catholic doctrines are held by Catholics as being the truth. You cannot be a Catholic if you reject them.

Your idea of co-existence with a grave evil is entirely effeminate and weak willed. Even if I was the last Catholic on this planet, I would stand tall in defiance of your so called majority. Let them make a martyr of me. I would never cooperate with such wickedness. I would oppose them down to my last breath. I’d rather be sentenced to death.

That is what Jesus did. He was not some sissy who laid down and said it was ok for people to do and believe whatever they wanted. He was not tolerant. He was not nice. He was not Mr. Rogers. He was God, and he was a man.

I must apologize to you, as I have not updated my profile in a while. I am a lapsed Catholic in search of a different Christian home church. And so no, I do not accept the Catholic doctrines as being the whole and only truth, though I recognize the fact that devout Catholics do for the purposes of debate in this forum.

I’m offended by your implications both that I am effeminate and that being effeminate is a bad thing. You’re stepping on very thin ice with these antiquated patriarchal ideals.

I would direct you to my most recent post in response to “fix” about the idea of divorce (and much more detail about the idea of the Church coexisting with others). Are you going to stand up and be a martyr until the end of time about adulterers? Jesus spoke loads about them (even though he never mentioned the sin of homosexuality specifically). What about people who cohabitate, fornicate, or masturbate? If you are indeed going to stand up against all those wicked people and be a martyr, then I applaud you for your commitment to your faith, and I sincerely wish you the best in that effort.

 

[Santi2]

Well that’s not the point of this topic. You’re never going to eliminate gay people or their desire to adopt children. The point of this topic is the idea of the moving forward of gay rights forcing religious organizations to adopt out to gay couples. And I’m just making it clear that many of us, perhaps even the majority in my experience, who support gay rights, do NOT support religious organizations being forced to adopt out to gay couples.

So, where are all of you? If you outnumber militant activists, why is it that none of you speak against those who swing the pendulum? The excuse about access to media is rather weak being that media will always take the opportunity to cover divisions within any community.

 

[peduzzi89]

So, where are all of you? If you outnumber militant activists, why is it that none of you speak against those who swing the pendulum? The excuse about access to media is rather weak being that media will always take the opportunity to cover divisions within any community.

I think it’s because many of us are more quiet about our views - many like me view our private lives as just that and don’t just seek out media attention to talk about our views on gay rights. If a reporter stopped on the street and asked what my views were, I’d be very vocal and straight-forward about them. But I don’t really have the time to take chunks out of my day to go out and try and get my views in the media - I barely have time to make these posts lol. Therefore, the people you usually hear from are either people whose viewpoints are so radical that they feel they must go out and rant all the time, or celebrities who are already in the limelight who, let’s face it, are more often than not ultra-liberal (which I am not).

This does not speak for all people or all situations. There are many who break these trends. I’m more just pointing out a trend that many don’t seem to realize exists.

 

[Santi2]

I think it’s because many of us are more quiet about our views - many like me view our private lives as just that and don’t just seek out media attention to talk about our views on gay rights. If a reporter stopped on the street and asked what my views were, I’d be very vocal and straight-forward about them. But I don’t really have the time to take chunks out of my day to go out and try and get my views in the media - I barely have time to make these posts lol. Therefore, the people you usually hear from are either people whose viewpoints are so radical that they feel they must go out and rant all the time, or celebrities who are already in the limelight who, let’s face it, are more often than not ultra-liberal (which I am not).

This does not speak for all people or all situations. There are many who break these trends. I’m more just pointing out a trend that many don’t seem to realize exists.

You have been asserting and re-asserting that your lot share our grievance but, plead inaction on account of “privacy”. If half of the time you spend at CAF is allocated towards commenting on issues as in the OP with publications which serves the homosexual community, then you’d have acted upon that common ground. One thing that the silent majority does not seem to appreciate is that a pendulum always swings back and you’d lose all the goodwill of those who have helped you achieve legitimate rights against discrimination.

 

[fix]

Nothing you said was confusing to me. I know you are pointing out that immoral laws cause problems. I’m simply saying that what you believe is the immorality of the law allowing gay couples to adopt is not in its entirety responsible for the problem that is the topic of this post. The responsibility lies in certain people not separating laws that govern in a secular way, and laws which protect religious organizations.

The basis for the problem is an immoral law. That much is self evident. The Church would not be in this position if unjust laws were not in place.

I’m getting the impression that because we disagree on larger issues of gay rights, that we cannot find any common ground whatsoever, such as the fact that we both agree that it’s wrong for this organization to be forced to adopt to gay couples. That common ground is the very reason why the Christian faith and Western democracy can coexist as you say they can. And you’re actually contradicting yourself because in an earlier post you said it was problematic for vice to be allowed to coexist peacefully with virtue.

How is that a contradiction? I am saying that these immoral laws bring on more and more injustice. You cannot have laws that normalize abnormal behavior and not have bigger problems. This is just the start.

The comparison to abortion and slavery is not a fair one. In those situations, you’re taking away fundamental human rights from a person without that person’s consent. Our government does not recognize having a biological mother and father raise a child in the same way that it does life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The child’s freedom to have a mother and father is being taken away and usurped by homosexual activists and other relativists.

The comparison is even further off when you’re speaking of two same-sex, consenting adults marrying. A fairer comparison would be that of divorce. The Church believes that divorce and remarriage is an extremely mortal sin - one that is condemned in the scripture far more often and directly than homosexuality.

Let us stop here with this straw man. Jesus, through His Church, condemns homosexual acts as evil in all circumstances. Civil divorce is not always a moral offense.

Yet she doesn’t engage in these same types of political battles about whether people who divorce and remarry have children even though they are adulterers and, according to the Church, just as sinful as homosexuals.

This is for another thread but there is no proof She says these sins are of the exact same gravity.

Sure, you can say that you think it shouldn’t be legal. But if it weren’t, there would be thousands of couples who separate anyway, creating all sorts of legal messes that would make the lives of children involved much more miserable than if they were just allowed to legally separate and move on peacefully. The reality of the situation is that them getting divorced does not infringe upon another person’s life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness the same way that abortion or slavery do - and neither does same sex marriage or adoption. I would make the argument that it’s actually prohibiting those things that infringes on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You are deflecting right here. Homosexual unions do violence to children. Civil divorce and remarriage can be entirely licit. Homosexual unions are always wrong.

 

[peduzzi89]

The basis for the problem is an immoral law. That much is self evident. The Church would not be in this position if unjust laws were not in place.

The immoral law that is causing this problem is forcing churches to adopt to gay couples, not that gay couples can legally adopt in the first place. I know you (meaning the Church) hold the latter to be immoral, but many people don’t, and have the freedom to. There’s nothing you can do about that.

How is that a contradiction? I am saying that these immoral laws bring on more and more injustice. You cannot have laws that normalize abnormal behavior and not have bigger problems. This is just the start.

It’s a contradiction because two statements you said are contradictory. To paraphrase, you said that virtue and vice cannot coexist peacefully, and also that the Christian faith and Western Democracy have a history of coexisting peacefully. Since this law was passed by Western Democracy, those are contradictory statements.

The child’s freedom to have a mother and father is being taken away and usurped by homosexual activists and other relativists.

The child’s freedom to be raised by their mother and their father in and of itself does not fall under the “certain unalienable rights” of life, liberty, and the pursuit in the way that abortion (clearly number one) and slavery (clearly number two) do. Our government has a long history of actively taking away a child’s mother and father when it’s in the child’s best interest - even if it’s a grandmother, two aunts that live together etc. If a child is being placed up for adoption, clearly being raised by their parents is not in the child’s best interest. And so a new home must be found. The government is saying gay parents can fall under this. That you think it’s immoral, however infallible you believe that stance to be, is ultimately based on the teaching of the Church, based on which the government does not, and cannot operate. It is erroneous to think that the intrinsic purpose of our laws it to enforce a societal moral code. Their purpose is rather to protect the freedom of individuals so long as it does not infringe on the freedom of anyone else. Again, your assertion that gay marriage or adoption is immoral does in fact take anyone else’s freedom is based on a religious teaching, not a universal truth. If it weren’t no one would disagree with you, and perhaps the Declaration of Independence would read, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: all teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Let us stop here with this straw man. Jesus, through His Church, condemns homosexual acts as evil in all circumstances. Civil divorce is not always a moral offense.

I would prefer you stop with the straw of pretending that the scripture condemns homosexuality in nearly as frequent, straight-forward, or clear-cut of a way as it does adultery. Of course now we’re getting into Biblical literalism vs the dogma of the Catholic church, which I would prefer not to. But suffice it to say that gay marriage, like adultery, involves two allegedly guilty parties who are consenting adults to their behavior, as opposed to abortion and slavery, which victimizes non-consenting parties. That was the point I was trying to make.

This is for another thread but there is no proof She says these sins are of the exact same gravity.

I would be interested in a thread on this topic, because I have run into many a time on this forum where I’ve said well isn’t __ better at least than ___? To which is often said, “no, sin is sin.”

You are deflecting right here. Homosexual unions do violence to children. Civil divorce and remarriage can be entirely licit. Homosexual unions are always wrong.

Ahh but licit and right, or illicit and wrong, are two different things. Which actually illustrates my point. Licit refers to being permitted by law. Divorce and remarriage is in fact permitted by law, even though it’s not only prohibited but deemed impossible by the church - just like same-sex marriage. In the same way, it can in fact be possible for civil same-sex marriage to coexist with the existence of the Catholic church.*

 

[peduzzi89]

You have been asserting and re-asserting that your lot share our grievance but, plead inaction on account of “privacy”. If half of the time you spend at CAF is allocated towards commenting on issues as in the OP with publications which serves the homosexual community, then you’d have acted upon that common ground. One thing that the silent majority does not seem to appreciate is that a pendulum always swings back and you’d lose all the goodwill of those who have helped you achieve legitimate rights against discrimination.

I do spend some time doing that in a similar capacity that I debate with people on here.

 

[Santi2]

In the same way, it can in fact be possible for civil same-sex marriage to coexist with the existence of the Catholic church.

It cannot, Peduzzi. In the UK, the proposed legislation for same-sex “marriage” is not an entirely civil matter. I suggest that you read our Bishops Brief to Parliament against the Marriage Same Sex Couples Bill.

With regards to co-existence and in view of the proposed legislation, below is an excerpt from a letter signed by over a thousand members of our clergy in England.

*It is meaningless to argue that Catholics and others may still teach their beliefs about marriage in schools and other arenas if they are also expected to uphold the opposite view at the same time. *

 

[fix]

The immoral law that is causing this problem is forcing churches to adopt to gay couples, not that gay couples can legally adopt in the first place. I know you (meaning the Church) hold the latter to be immoral, but many people don’t, and have the freedom to. There’s nothing you can do about that.**

There is no freedom to act immoral. That is license. What we can and must do is speak out against these unjust laws.

It’s a contradiction because two statements you said are contradictory. To paraphrase, you said that virtue and vice cannot coexist peacefully, and also that the Christian faith and Western Democracy have a history of coexisting peacefully. Since this law was passed by Western Democracy, those are contradictory statements.

 

[peduzzi89]

There is no freedom to act immoral. That is license. What we can and must do is speak out against these unjust laws.

Of course there is. I have the freedom to do anything I want. If there were no freedom to act immoral no one would do so. License speaks to whether or not I’m permitted to do so. I have the freedom to do many things that I’m not “permitted” to do.

There is no contradiction. And as I have shown these unjust laws are affecting the Church as well as all of culture.

You have not shown anything. The article in the OP shows how one unjust law has affected the Church, which I agree with. The rest you’ve simply stated, which is not showing.

Yes, a home that is not contrived in a deviant way. So, your position does not stand.

It is based on logic, common sense, natural moral law, and tradition.

No, this issue is not a sectarian issue alone. This is an issue of common sense.

Again, so YOU say. You’re projecting your idea of common sense, logic, natural law, and tradition onto the majority of the country who supports same-sex marriage. You’re a senior member, fix, you should know by now that outside the world of dogmatic religion, there’s no one, commonly held, universally believed version of these things. And our law absolutely supports that difference of opinion.

The children are victims here.

Another simple statement of what YOU believe to be correct that you simply cannot project onto others. The only ways in which they are victims are based on your religious beliefs. preparing for a quote about natural moral law, tradition, etc - see above. When children are really victims is when you DON’T let their parents get married. For example, a gay man adopts a child legally only by himself. But he raises the child with and makes a home with his partner of ten years. They live in a house in a quiet suburban community, and the child considers both men to be equally his parents. They have the legal ability to do all these things. One day, the man who legally adopted the child loses his job. Therefore he, and more importantly the child, have no health insurance. Even his partner has a great job with great benefits, the child is now going to have haphazard, reactive, healthcare paid for by our tax dollars because his parents can’t get married. In the next state over, we have the exact same situation, except that the two men are legally married. Both love their children, give everything they have to them, teach them to treat people well and be responsible for their actions - as parents should do. But in scenario #2, when one parent loses his job, the other’s benefits go toward the child, and he can continue to get high quality, preventative health care. These are both very real scenarios that occur today. Who’s the victim? Your position says both, but that you’d rather have scenario #1. Well, more than half the country disagrees, and the people are speaking.

I hope this disabuses you and others of the notion that same-sex marriage suddenly and magically allows gay couples to raise children. They already can and do, and they are totally within their legal freedom to do so. There’s nothing you can do about that except voice your opinion which you are completely free to do. Therefore the idea of barring same sex marriage because you believe that would protect children doesn’t even make sense because doing so does nothing to prevent gay couples from raising them. It simply takes away protections from children who already exist. If you want to protect children, allow their parents to marry.

Not all grave sin is equal.

No arguments here.

No. Civil divorce is not always a moral offense as the Church teaches. Remarriage is not always a moral offense as the Church teaches. Homosexual unions are always a moral offense under any circumstance.

Despite already establishing that what the Church teaches is not directly relevant in the legal proceeding of same-sex marriage, I’m extremely curious. Could you please explain the scenarios in which Civil divorce and remarriage are not always a moral offense?

 

[peduzzi89]

It cannot, Peduzzi. In the UK, the proposed legislation for same-sex “marriage” is not an entirely civil matter. I suggest that you read our Bishops Brief to Parliament against the Marriage Same Sex Couples Bill.

With regards to co-existence and in view of the proposed legislation, below is an excerpt from a letter signed by over a thousand members of our clergy in England.

*It is meaningless to argue that Catholics and others may still teach their beliefs about marriage in schools and other arenas if they are also expected to uphold the opposite view at the same time. *

Just because it isn’t at the moment doesn’t mean it cannot. In my opinion, they’re not doing it right. If they’re proposing that Catholic schools have to teach about same sex marriage, then I totally disagree.

 

[Santi2]

Just because it isn’t at the moment doesn’t mean it cannot. In my opinion, they’re not doing it right. If they’re proposing that Catholic schools have to teach about same sex marriage, then I totally disagree.

Sitting governments and the homosexual community (which includes your silent majority) have not done anything right since the repeal of Section 28 of the Local Authorities Act 1988 which prohibited promotion of homosexuality or the gay “pretended” family in our schools.

 

[peduzzi89]

Sitting governments and the homosexual community (which includes your silent majority) have not done anything right since the repeal of Section 28 of the Local Authorities Act 1988 which prohibited promotion of homosexuality or the gay “pretended” family in our schools.

There are two things that I’m not sure about: whether we’re still talking about the UK or US, and whether what you just said is referring to Catholic schools our public schools. If it’s referring to public schools, that’s a whole different ballgame. Despite commonly held belief, you don’t get to individually decide on what gets taught in schools . Your say comes when you vote for your school board, judges, and other people who make these decisions. Of the person you wanted didn’t get elected, that’s too bad - the majority had spoken. That’s our process here in the US at least. The Church had the freedom to have its own school if it doesn’t like ones run by the government, and you have the freedom to send your children there.

I’m offended by your use of “families” in quotes. Whether or not you like it, there are gay couples with children in houses who pay taxes in neighborhoods just like yours, and you don’t get to decide whether they fit the definition of a family. I don’t go around saying the Catholic “religion” so I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t make such callous remarks either.