Last Catholic Adoption Agency in England fights to stay open

  • Thread starter Thread starter Netty1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Given that single sex couples have much higher rates of breakup, much higher rates of physical and psychological domestic abuse, and have higher rates of having been molested as children themselves*, and much higher rates of infidelity, all of these are contributory factors to “unsuitable home”.

It’s flat out statistically more likely that they will be exposed to inter-adult abuse, adult-child abuse, noticing parental infidelity and/or termination of the relationship.
  • almost all sexual abusers were themselves sexually abused, and therefore are almost always, as a clade, the source of sexual abusers. One who was sexually abused should not be as readily permitted to adopt due to the increased risks of they themselves abusing.
 
Aramis said:
Given that single sex couples have much higher rates of breakup, much higher rates of physical and psychological domestic abuse, and have higher rates of having been molested as children themselves*, and much higher rates of infidelity, all of these are contributory factors to “unsuitable home”.

It’s flat out statistically more likely that they will be exposed to inter-adult abuse, adult-child abuse, noticing parental infidelity and/or termination of the relationship.
  • almost all sexual abusers were themselves sexually abused, and therefore are almost always, as a clade, the source of sexual abusers. One who was sexually abused should not be as readily permitted to adopt due to the increased risks of they themselves abusing.
Click to expand...
Either you prove what you are saying or apologize right now. Someone very close to me was sexually abused and for you to suggest that that means they are a paedophile themselves is utterly abhorrent. Shame on you.

How dare you tell me that someone who was sexually abused should not be allowed to adopt. You are a disgrace and I am really struggling not to swear.

I have a friend who is gay. Are you telling me they are more likely to rape a child? Can you prove that?

What you are saying disgusts me to the point where I feel sick. I hate that there are as small-minded and abhorrent people like you in the world. When I look at my very close friend who was sexually abused, I do not see someone who will be a threat to children. I see someone who was betrayed in the most ultimate way and struggles with depression.

You are a sick human being. I am sorry for saying that, but you make me feel ill.
 
SunnaB16 said:
We`ve all been given the gift of free will. We have to be prepared to accept the consequences of how we exercise it.

Some of us have the conviction that same-sex unions have NO RIGHT to “adopt” children. FULL STOP! Our consciences are formed by heeding the Natural Law and the Wisdom of Christ`s Holy Spirit-guided Church.

The first step was to deny the rights of the unborn under a certain age…

That`s your opinion, due to an intellect damaged in the spiritual realm by lack of Supernatural Life.

And, i hate to say this, but; youre fooling yourself, for reasons already stated. Anyway, one day youll learn the truth; and, for your sake, i hope you have time to repent of your blindness.

Yeah?
Again: your total rejection of the spiritual, and the consequences of sin.

There was no point in asking you to use your imagination, was there! Obviously, in this area at least, you dont have one. The evidence will come......if it hasnt already.

***Like hell it wouldnt!!!*** ive no intention of being sanitised/desensitised/brainwashed into accepting sexual depravity.
It seems that you`ve been deceived that way.

Again: identity confusion for the victims of this er…right to adopt.

The rights of all includes the rights of children to a healthy God-willed upbringing!

If you think its quite OK for the world to degenerate into a global Sodom and Gomorrah, thats your affair. The sickening part of it is that the rest of us have to suffer the physical and spiritual consequences of the resulting sin and depravity.

God will not be mocked!!!
Eventually, therell be retribution......for our sake. Thats why (for example) Assyria overran the northern kingdom of Israel; and Babylon overran the southern kingdom of Judaea. To shake `em out of their apostasy.

Again, though, you reject all of that; dont you. Its a case of “Eat, drink, and be merry…”.
“Get what you can get out this life, mate, because thats probably all youll get.”
“Nomero uno!”
The cult of SELF!
No clearly defined boundaries.
No moral absolutes; just whatever “the mob” decides today. Tomorrow, for a different “mob” or vocal pressure group, itll be different. The day after tomorrow...... And you think thats perfectly OK.

Get hold of some decent literature on Moral Theology.
As i said earlier, you cant learn the Truth in only a few lines of print. Its a long, hard slog, but worth it in the end.
Click to expand...
Ah, I’ve just seen what’s going on here.
 
Aramis said:
Given that single sex couples have much higher rates of breakup, much higher rates of physical and psychological domestic abuse, and have higher rates of having been molested as children themselves*, and much higher rates of infidelity, all of these are contributory factors to “unsuitable home”.

It’s flat out statistically more likely that they will be exposed to inter-adult abuse, adult-child abuse, noticing parental infidelity and/or termination of the relationship.
  • almost all sexual abusers were themselves sexually abused, and therefore are almost always, as a clade, the source of sexual abusers. One who was sexually abused should not be as readily permitted to adopt due to the increased risks of they themselves abusing.
Click to expand...
Wow, serious claims. I imagine you have some data to back it up?
 
Aramis said:
Given that single sex couples have much higher rates of breakup, much higher rates of physical and psychological domestic abuse, and have higher rates of having been molested as children themselves*, and much higher rates of infidelity, all of these are contributory factors to “unsuitable home”.
Click to expand...
Even assuming what you say is true, the error of your reasoning stands out. Simply because two individuals belong to a category which has higher rates of instability does not mean that those two individuals are unstable themselves. There is no reason to make condemn those individuals out of hand. I would hope the adoption screening was a little more sophisticated than making blanket judgments without any knowledge of the persons involved.
 
kaid100 said:
Wow, serious claims. I imagine you have some data to back it up?
Click to expand...
Data was published in 1996. Dealt with it at work. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

That child molestation is almost always done by former victims thereof has been well known for 30 years; it’s in several of my Ed Textbooks, too…
 
Aramis said:
Data was published in 1996. Dealt with it at work. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Click to expand...
Oh right, I’ll take your word for it then.

No chance, apologize or post something with an internet link that we can look up. I would apologize for your abhorrent, disgusting, inhuman comments if I were you before you seriously upset someone.

What you say is an insult to the survivors of sexual abuse and also an insult to your country, wherever you are.

I apologise for my harsh words but sometimes, people just need to be told these things.
 
LemonAndLime said:
Oh right, I’ll take your word for it then.

No chance, apologize or post something with an internet link that we can look up. I would apologize for your abhorrent, disgusting, inhuman comments if I were you before you seriously upset someone.

What you say is an insult to the survivors of sexual abuse and also an insult to your country, wherever you are.

I apologise for my harsh words but sometimes, people just need to be told these things.
Click to expand...
childprotection.lifetips.com/cat/63573/sex-offender-statistics/index.html
  • Child molesters and offenders were more likely to have grown up in a two parent home and were more likely to have been molested as a child.
Other studies show much higher rates than the BJS releases to the public, but don’t limit it to sexual abuse, as the page cited is exclusively sexual offenders.
 
kaid100 said:
Ah, I’ve just seen what’s going on here.
Click to expand...
So: you think i`m doing the equivalent of the door to door JW act?

Not necessarily; but it wouldnt hurt you to understand the reasons for the stand we Catholics take. Thats probably the last thing you`d want to do.

The “right” of same-sex “couples” to adopt.
The “right” of women to abort babies.
The “right” of women to be “priestesses”.
Ad Nauseam

The rights of everyone…except us.
Were allowed to believe what we want to believe......as long as we dont try to impose our “Mediaeval” beliefs on others.
Its OK for these others to inflict their decadent beliefs on us, though. Were supposed to just shut up!

The offspring of your esteemed “lawmakers” will have to put up with the results of the “laws” enacted by their spiritually and morally bankrupt parents.

Aramis has provided evidence…

Even if we have to wait until Doomsday, the Truth will be made clear to every one of us. That`s a consolation.

PS
If a single person is legally entitled to adopt; then im against that, too. i wasnt aware that that`s permitted.
 
Aramis said:
childprotection.lifetips.com/cat/63573/sex-offender-statistics/index.html
  • Child molesters and offenders were more likely to have grown up in a two parent home and were more likely to have been molested as a child.
Other studies show much higher rates than the BJS releases to the public, but don’t limit it to sexual abuse, as the page cited is exclusively sexual offenders.
Click to expand...
From the website -
Approximately 22% of child offenders reported having been sexually abused as a child.
Click to expand...
Lets assume this website is correct. Read the above quote. 22% of CHILDREN who were offenders while still being a child were abused while they were still children. Sounds like monkey see monkey do type of behaviour rather than an instrisic desire to be a paedophile.

Also, “more likely to have been abused themselves” - it doesn’t provide any evidence to back that up. Your point is void.

Also, apologize for suggesting that most people who were sexually abused as a child become offenders themselves please. But you’ve just killed your own argument anyway so don’t bother, apologizing is too late now.
 
kaid100 said:
Because the lawmakers have decided to place the rights of some ahead of the beliefs of others. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...
I have to respond to this. What you are actually talking about is a abuse of power in regards to the lawmakers. You are also forgetting the conscience clause. Back during the Vietnam era, there were some people called conscientious objectors who opposed the war and refused to fight even though they were drafted. There is a provision in the law for a person that conscientiously objects to a war, etc to refuse to participate. The Catholic adoption agency is simply doing this. IT is against our beliefs to give to “gay” parents, etc. There are plenty of other agencies where gays can adopt kids, why go after the Catholic agencies? They don’t have to go after the Catholic ones but apparently this is another case where one’s religious beliefs are trashed so that other people’s ideas on what is family is celebrated.

I am very sick and tired of this. Many Catholics are. We are not “allowed” to speak out and say that homosexuality is wrong in the public arena but it seems that in this society is it perfectly ok to mock and ridicule our beliefs. This ISN’T tolerance. It is bullying. It is discrimination pure and simple.

Need I also show another example? Quakers do not give oaths. It is against their beliefs. Yet, one must take an oath in a court of Law or to be sworn into office or the military. Again, a provision is provided for them. They affirm rather than swear. This is what true accommodation is.

What is being done in England and what was done in Massachusetts a few years ago wasn’t accommodating different beliefs. Instead, they are being bullied out of existence. There are some people who would like to see doctors perform abortions and distribute birth control in spite of their beliefs as well. That would be wrong to do. It isn’t right.
 
SunnaB16 said:
So: you think i`m doing the equivalent of the door to door JW act?

Not necessarily; but it wouldnt hurt you to understand the reasons for the stand we Catholics take. Thats probably the last thing you`d want to do.

The “right” of same-sex “couples” to adopt.
The “right” of women to abort babies.
The “right” of women to be “priestesses”.
Ad Nauseam

The rights of everyone…except us.
Were allowed to believe what we want to believe......as long as we dont try to impose our “Mediaeval” beliefs on others.
Its OK for these others to inflict their decadent beliefs on us, though. Were supposed to just shut up!
Click to expand...
Amen! I completely agree. I am ticked off about it too.
 
I’m not in favor of Gay adoption, but I must point out the horribly defective logic in your conclusion that you’ve got going here. You are leaving out some important factors in the equation.

For example, if you have 100 children that were molested, and 100% of them were molested by someone who was themselves molested as a child, you make the conclusion that there were 100 children molested by 100 molesters, when it’s possible, that there was only one molester who molested 100 children single-handed.

That one molester may be among a group of 100 people who were molested as children, and the other 99 grew up normal.

There was recently a series of arson in my area, about a dozen in just months in one town. It turned out that they were ALL started by the fire department. How many firemen started fires?
Aramis said:
  • almost all sexual abusers were themselves sexually abused, and therefore are almost always, as a clade, the source of sexual abusers.
Click to expand...
 
CatholicBoy1957 said:
I’m not in favor of Gay adoption, but I must point out the horribly defective logic in your conclusion that you’ve got going here. You are leaving out some important factors in the equation.

For example, if you have 100 children that were molested, and 100% of them were molested by someone who was themselves molested as a child, you make the conclusion that there were 100 children molested by 100 molesters, when it’s possible, that there was only one molester who molested 100 children single-handed.

That one molester may be among a group of 100 people who were molested as children, and the other 99 grew up normal.

There was recently a series of arson in my area, about a dozen in just months in one town. It turned out that they were ALL started by the fire department. How many firemen started fires?
Click to expand...
I would revise your post. I think I need a translator to understand it. I can’t make sense of your numbers. I can read and I can “do” maths, but what are you trying to say here? That 1% of people molested become a molester themselves? What are you basing this on? :confused: :confused:
 
Netty1 said:
The last remaining Catholic adoption agency in England and Wales has renewed its battle to stay open.

Catholic Care, which serves the dioceses of Leeds, Middlesbrough and Hallam, wants to continue its policy of assessing only married heterosexuals and single people as potential adopters and foster parents.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/10/06/adoption-agency-renews-fight-to-stay-open/
Click to expand...
Amazing how radically evil the paradigm has become. I noticed in yesterday’s news that in our country, the state of Florida, the last of the 50 states to deny homosexual couples the right to adopt has now had to surrender the position in the face of yet another costly and highly litigious court challenge.
As predicted, the world now sees good as if evil and evil as if good, there really cannot be much debate as to who in fact is now for the most part…making the rules.
Case in point is the story you relate above; why can’t Catholic Care continue to operate on it’s moral premises? Because the Secular Authority will not tolerate non compliance to it’s own immoral premises.
 
brumano said:
Amazing how radically evil the paradigm has become. I noticed in yesterday’s news that in our country, the state of Florida, the last of the 50 states to deny homosexual couples the right to adopt has now had to surrender the position in the face of yet another costly and highly litigious court challenge.
As predicted, the world now sees good as if evil and evil as if good, there really cannot be much debate as to who in fact is now for the most part…making the rules.
Case in point is the story you relate above; why can’t Catholic Care continue to operate on it’s moral premises? Because the Secular Authority will not tolerate non compliance to it’s own immoral premises.
Click to expand...
Douay-Rheims Bible
Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.
bible.cc/isaiah/5-20.htm
 
LemonAndLime said:
but what are you trying to say here?
Click to expand...
Let’s take it slow, one step at a time, to help make it more clear.

The main point of my post was: the logic in Aramis’s post is defective.

He basically said almost all perpetrators were themselves victims, therefore almost all victims will themselves be perpetrators. That’s like saying
1 = 2

You can say 1 + 1 = 2
or
1.5 + .5 = 2
but you can’t say
1 = 2

He left out a factor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top