this is a very interesting question?
the reason I say this is that I was given up at birth 57 years ago in 1954.
My birth dad skipped out on my biologicial mother in the first trimester and she gave me up
when I was borne and she also gave up my baby sister in 1963.

Now the couple I was adopted by in 1954 were turned down 5 years later when they
wanted to adopt a second child. The reason the agency stated was they said they were
too old, but that wasn't true. Both of them were under the 40 year age cut off.

now back in the day when I was adopted things were tight money wise.
I asked my mom once "What did you go thru to adopt me?"
She told me to watch a film called "Penny Serenade" with Irene Dunn/Cary Grant.
The story is similar to mine.
Worst mistake I ever made to watch that film. It's a tear jerker.

If you want to adopt a child you should be able to do so.
No matter the age,medical condition you have.
Orphan children need loving homes to grow up in.
There shouldn't be discrimanation attached to adoptions.

Oct 23, 2011 -- 2:29PM, jesusfreakgal wrote:

I don't want to cause a fight, but please don't be rude to me. Just because I don't believe in it (as in I think it's wrong, not as in it doesn't exist. I never actually said it didn't exist). 

JFG

When someone says they don't "believe in X", that means they don't believe it exists.  If I don't "believe in the tooth fairy", I don't beleive such an entity exists.  I would not have made a comment on whether I think the purchase of teeth in the dead of night is a moral activity.

I was not being rude to you, I was critical of your arguement and the offensive characterizations of prospective parents-- particularly those who are reaching out to children in need within the fostercare system.  

I also think your judgement against homosexuality is rude, as is your dismissal of gay parents as not even being worthy of adoption consideration because of your imaginations of their sexual intimacies... which, have nothing to do with their relationships with their children.

So-- if you detected rudeness, you may have been picking up on my post's echoing of the tone of your original post.  You may want to see how rude you were being yourself.

Oct 22, 2011 -- 11:34PM, jesusfreakgal wrote:

For me the gay couple adoption thing is more tricky because I do not believe in homosexuality. But when it comes to single people, I think that is just wrong. Some people have the strong desire to raise children, but have no desire to get married. Now I understand the whole man adopting a baby girl or woman adopting a baby boy and the charity being worried about the same gender influence on the child's life. Aside from that, I don't undetstand (regarding single people), now if its the case of unmarried couples I kind of slightly understand. You could have a couple who is together for quite some time who moves in together. They talk of adopting children, but not getting married. They could just get to the point where they were legally considered a common law couple and then they go through the whole adoption process. I could be (not sure how often it happens) that one person ends up wanting the child much more then the other, and soon after the adoption is finalized, the couple seperates and stuff, and one parent wants nothing to do with teh child or what not.

JFG

Wow JFG, you have an interesting way of characterizing millions of people all with unique lives, inspirations and dreams into a few superficial characterizations.  Your post did inspire me however.

I no longer believe in heterosexuality.  Poof.  Does not exist.  That has given me a whole new unique perspective on this issue.  How dare Catholic Charities even consider adopting out to two individuals who cannot even use the same public bathroom!!??  I mean, what if one of them is changing the baby and has some sort of attack and the other hears about it by cell phone but can't get to them....!  How could Catholic Charities do something like that??

Thank you JFG for the new lease on logic.  I am now going to go ponder other burning issues.

There seem to be two separate issues at play here and the arguements behind each are being diluted due to loyalties or attitudes around the other issue.  The two issues are-- one> should a good intentioned outside entity be able to take money from the state, contribute on their own but then operate independent of the state's rules?   The second issue is whether the bias of Catholic Charities is benign or harmfull-- or whether it is just "politically incorrect" but does no real harm.

On the first, I have trouble believing that any of the posters on this thread would be "ok" with a similar attitude being exhibited in the delivery of other services.  Would we be "ok" if an agency took state money to feed the poor but due to their religion, only believed white people were eligible for their care?  And if it turned out that they were feeding moderately poor white people over very poor black people, would we say "Aw, thats ok, they are helping feed some poor people so who cares if it is only done within their principles..."  ?   Really??

So... giving everyone here credit for being decent, I am guessing that no one would say that was "ok".  I think under other circumstances, adhering to state rules and standards to get state funding would be a legitimate bar for any of us.

So... it seems to me, that whether the bias of the Catholic Charities is harmful or not IS the real point of discussion.  

And there... I have my own perspective.  I am a father of two.  My sons were born drug exposed and put into fostercare as new borns and infants.  Both their mothers were married, and one couple was Catholic.  I was the boys' foster parent, along with my domestic partner.  I am gay.

My sons went to full adoption.  Both are in 3rd grade now and doing very well despite learning disabilities caused by womb drug exposure.  I earn a decent living, and (I am not complaining about this) all of my "disposable" income is going for tutors, educational therapy and low student/teacher ratio education for my sons.  I can't think of a better use of money honestly.

This is a contribution, and a family, that I willingly signed up for.  In my journey, I have met gay and straight foster/adoptive parents who are equally committed.  I have also met some that were out to get money from the system and use it to live on rether than use it to care for the children in their trust.  My point here is that there are people who are "in it" that should be screened out due to a lesser intent for good than others.

Throwing in another agenda item as the one the Catholic Charities wants to do IS harmful in my opinion.  It is picking one set of parents over another for reasons other than that they truly are wanting to dewvote themselves to the welfare of the child... but picking them because they have the "right" papers, partner gender, etc.

But my perpective on this is, admittedly, unique.  As I said, my eldest son's birth mother injested heroin the night before he was born, which could have killed him.  According to this screening process of Catholic Charities, she ... married, Catholic... would not have been screened out.  Me... the gay man who loves the boy she gave birth to above anything else in this world, and who has devoted my life to giving him a normal one....  I would have been.