Post Reply
Page 3 of 9  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Who Should Be Allowed To Adopt?
3 years ago  ::  Oct 07, 2011 - 7:01AM #21
Ebon
Posts: 9,839

This is one of those occasions where ranger and I are pretty much in agreement.


Multiple long-duration studies have shown that children raised in a stable, loving home (regardless of the gender or marital status of their guardians) tend to grow into good citizens. That's not a guarantee but it is a strong probability. Multiple studies have also shown that kids with gay parents or guardians turn out just as well-developed as kids from traditional family structures. With that in mind, anyone who can pass the already stringent process to adopt should be allowed to do so.


If the RCC wants to discriminate against gay and unmarried couples, fine, but they can't do so on the federal dime. They need to choose which is more important.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 07, 2011 - 10:38AM #22
Girlchristian
Posts: 10,743

Oct 7, 2011 -- 7:01AM, Ebon wrote:


This is one of those occasions where ranger and I are pretty much in agreement.


Multiple long-duration studies have shown that children raised in a stable, loving home (regardless of the gender or marital status of their guardians) tend to grow into good citizens. That's not a guarantee but it is a strong probability. Multiple studies have also shown that kids with gay parents or guardians turn out just as well-developed as kids from traditional family structures. With that in mind, anyone who can pass the already stringent process to adopt should be allowed to do so.


If the RCC wants to discriminate against gay and unmarried couples, fine, but they can't do so on the federal dime. They need to choose which is more important.




+1

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2011 - 5:03AM #23
karbie
Posts: 3,305

By the way, while the first lin didn't work, the second one linking to PBS went through immediately. I find it ironic that the tone from the director of Catholic Charities was so smug about proclaiming that whenever a civic law was not consistent with "Church policy", that it was always going to be "Church policy" that prevailed. In other words, while it would grand foster or adoptive children to married couples or even single parents, but would never agree to place a foster child with unwed couples or homosexual couples.


Considering other "Church policies" that have come to light, the man's whole attitude of smug superiority that these practices would not be changed whether funding was removed, it should be removed. At the moment, the past concerns that have come to light over the RRR's "protecting children" by recycling pedophiles from community to community makes me wonder how they managed to get taxpayer funding in the first place.


What children need to thrive is a warm, stable environment with loving parents. Illinois now recognizes civil unions of gays, so that gets rid of the 'unmarried'  requirement. It's just one those pesky civil rights the Church doesn't think it has to abide by.As a religious organization, the Church can be a bigoted as it chooses to be, and can be supported by members' donations. When you have good people who are willing to foster and/or adopt the older children and give them real homes instead of group homes, it should be the welfare of the children that comes first, not prejudice.


 

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2011 - 4:28PM #24
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,660

The sad thing is the willingness of the Catholic charities administrators to put their prejudice before the well-being of the children, but that is typical bigotry in action.


Nothing is more important then the well being of the children. And as Karbie stated what children need is a stable loving environment to be raised in, and they can receive that from both  single people and gay people.


 

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2011 - 5:14PM #25
jane2
Posts: 14,289

Oct 9, 2011 -- 4:28PM, mainecaptain wrote:


The sad thing is the willingness of the Catholic charities administrators to put their prejudice before the well-being of the children, but that is typical bigotry in action.


Nothing is more important then the well being of the children. And as Karbie stated what children need is a stable loving environment to be raised in, and they can receive that from both  single people and gay people.


 




But a religious organization that declares itself as such can proceed within its own boundaries and refuse to take government monies. State and local governments can provide for adoptions.


This IS about freedom of religion.


 




discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2011 - 9:54PM #26
Iwantamotto
Posts: 7,800

TemplarS:  4) In considering prospective adoptive parents, marital status seems to me appropriate in terms of granting preference.  It is a sign of a commitment, which would seem to be a factor in providing a stable home for a child.  How this would play out in states which do not recognize gay marriage is more difficult (legally);  it would not seem equitable to penalize people who are willing but legally unable to make suich a commitment.



As someone borne of a relationship that ended 15 years too late, IMHO, I can tell you that personally I don't trust the fact you have a piece of paper saying you're committed to a relationship.


Why can't it be more like a job interview, or taking the nursing exam?  You have a scenario, the peeps get to give their answers, you combine the most rational ones with people who've been together at least a few years, and you get a kid.


This might be another of those cases where government has chosen to outsource something because it would cost the government too much to set up and run such an agency itself, as opposed to subsidizing an already-existing agency.



The beauty of capitalism is that there should be others waiting in the wings.


Demand exceeds supply.



I would find this easier to swallow if no one was currently in the system.


Fact: for older children, supply exceeds demand



Ah, never mind :P

Knock and the door shall open.  It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 10, 2011 - 9:11AM #27
TemplarS
Posts: 6,260

Oct 9, 2011 -- 9:54PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


TemplarS:  4) In considering prospective adoptive parents, marital status seems to me appropriate in terms of granting preference.  It is a sign of a commitment, which would seem to be a factor in providing a stable home for a child.  How this would play out in states which do not recognize gay marriage is more difficult (legally);  it would not seem equitable to penalize people who are willing but legally unable to make suich a commitment.



As someone borne of a relationship that ended 15 years too late, IMHO, I can tell you that personally I don't trust the fact you have a piece of paper saying you're committed to a relationship.


Why can't it be more like a job interview, or taking the nursing exam?  You have a scenario, the peeps get to give their answers, you combine the most rational ones with people who've been together at least a few years, and you get a kid.




Oh, there are, there are.  There are forms to fill out, and interviews, and home studies.  There are legal documents and court appearances.  This is not an easy or painfree process. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 10, 2011 - 9:13AM #28
TemplarS
Posts: 6,260

Oct 9, 2011 -- 9:54PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


]TemplarS:  This might be another of those cases where government has chosen to outsource something because it would cost the government too much to set up and run such an agency itself, as opposed to subsidizing an already-existing agency.



 
The beauty of capitalism is that there should be others waiting in the wings.





Capitalism and waiting in the wings, huh?  Ever hear of orphan drugs? Sometimes it's just not worth the capitalists bother.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 10, 2011 - 12:26PM #29
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,660

Oct 9, 2011 -- 5:14PM, jane2 wrote:


Oct 9, 2011 -- 4:28PM, mainecaptain wrote:


The sad thing is the willingness of the Catholic charities administrators to put their prejudice before the well-being of the children, but that is typical bigotry in action.


Nothing is more important then the well being of the children. And as Karbie stated what children need is a stable loving environment to be raised in, and they can receive that from both  single people and gay people.


 




But a religious organization that declares itself as such can proceed within its own boundaries and refuse to take government monies. State and local governments can provide for adoptions.


This IS about freedom of religion.


 






I do not argue that. That is true. But the point I was trying to make , is (and note I said administrators, I am not attacking Catholicism or Catholics) is there using their religious doctrine, to not do what is best for children.


Yes I know they have probably convinced themselves they are, (maybe) but in a position such as this, they should have all the facts available. And the facts available say children do better in loving, stable homes (then in foster or state care), regardless of whether the parents are single or gay. And many gay parents are couples so that argument dies right there.


They are putting their prejudices before the good of the children.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 10, 2011 - 5:01PM #30
Lonesentinel
Posts: 2,423

Oct 3, 2011 -- 6:05PM, REteach wrote:


I think the RCC can discriminate all it wants as long as it is not taking any state funds. Once you take state funds to do a job, you adhere to state norms.  


Think about it--why should gay people pay taxes to the RCC so it can treat them like crap?  They can be treated like crap without having to pay taxes to enjoy the privilege. 





I agree - though I would say it differently.  If a religeous organization wishes to act as a 'child welfare' agency, and recieve monies from the government to do so, then it should have the same or better standards as the government.  If the same organization wishes to impose their own 'moralities' on such should have to fund it on their own - unless the govt has not the ability to do so...(which I have no idea what the 'case' may be in Illinois)

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 9  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook