News today informs me that there will be new laws to outlaw discrimination in the placement of children up for adoption. The churches wished for an opt out clause for agencies run by themselves but appear about to be denied there wish. I feel slightly uncomfortable with government insisting religious bodies comply with this myself, am I out of touch with the modern world, whats your view ? My biggest problem I suppose is actually people haveing a "RIGHT" to raise children.
You can just imagine the bullying at school. Kids can be cruel, they don't give a shit about being politically correct or accepting.
independent agencies should have the choice to give to whoever they like, as long as they are regulated and are seen to give the kids to good homes. i just think that hetero couples are more likely to give a balanced mindset to a child. if theres not enough hetero couples around, then maybe give gays a go. but thats unlikely.
If we accept that gay couples have the same rights as hetero ones and can't be discriminated against, there's simply no way to argue against this. Adoption is not a private matter but an issue for the state, and we can't allow unreasonable prejudice and discrimination to come into such an important matter, hiding behind the flag of religion. Religious concerns shouldn't be allowed to play any part whatsoever in matters of the state
said much better than i've been capable of today. in other words, if my brain were working well - which it's not - i would have said this exact same thing or well roughly the same.
I agree, then why isn't the state dealing with these matters and not religious bodies, perhaps this could be the real death knell ? Surely time to shut religions down, they are antiquated and serve no purpose, turn all the churches and chapels into pubs, shops and houses.
I suppose the adoption agencies in question are part of the church's charitable work - which is fair enough, I'm sure they do a good job, but they can't expect to go on imposing their doctrine when it's contrary to the law of the land, which says that discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference is illegal. As for banning religion - I saw three news stories today: this one, one about a priest accused of branding children as witches and inciting physical abuse, and one about a woman who left her dead daughter lying around in Lourdes for five months thinking that the magic lady would resurrect her (link) If it weren't for superstition...
i think gay guys should only be allowed to adopt girls since gay men are so into fashion, this would compliment a girl's interests and development and gay women are really into sports and so they should only be allowed to adopt a boy for likewise reasons
I don't think you can start to make exceptions. Religious institutions and their values should not take priority over civil institutions and civil values. If gay adoption is legal under the law of a given state, adoption agencies, even if they are run by the church, should not be given an opt out clause. They must find a way to reconcile their beliefs with the requirement of the state and if they cannot, they should close themselves down. When it is a matter of individual choice, such as wearing a crucifix on a plane, or a hijab where it will not affect communication, then I wouldn't see a problem. But when an institution is serving the wider public and people outside of its own constituency, then exceptions that require equality to all people before the law cannot be made. Or else where do you draw the line?
There is a lot of hiding behind the law going on here, and no personal opinions, c'mon what do you think ? "If the law says so" blah de blah, since when have you lot been advocates for the state and its decrees? "Oh if they say so, it must be right " don't hear that about Iraq. Do you agree that homosexual couples have a right to adopt and raise children, because I'm finding the concept difficult, I have no problem with any other aspects of existence ?
On the moral issue, I have absolutely no problem with homosexual couples raising children if they choose to do so. They should be equal in all aspects of life. But the legal issue is fundamental here, and it is not an issue which can be compared to my disagreement with the Iraq war. I'm not hiding behind the law, this is a personal opinion, that is fundamental to my outlook on life. I am not arguing that the laws of the state are always just or that they should always be followed if following them would seem morally objectionable. What I am arguing, is that for a modern, liberal democratic nation state to function, temporal power must take precedence over spiritual power....
Okay fair and honest. May I take your views a step further. A single female is able to aquire and raise a child, would you then advocate the same right for a single man, homosexual or otherwise ? In fact everybody whatever their sexual prevelance has the right to aquire and rear children ?
Irrelevant of sexuality, I would be hesitant to grant a single male or female adoption rights without a strong support network, be it family or social, behind them. It's not a statement on their ability to raise, care for and love that child. But given the rising problem of poor, unemployed single mothers raising children with diminished life chances, I would be hesitant to exacerbate the situation. It is a fact that, all things being equal, two parents, even if they are not co-habiting, are better than one parent in giving a child the best start in life - primarily for economic reasons in that it would be much harder to raise a child single handedly and advance a career which is not supportive of that....
I feel super conservative on this issue. Wherever possible a child should be given a home that allows for the full security of what we would all consider normal. I'm not going to debate the concept of normal but this excludes single lesbians, homosexuals and couples; and single heterosexuals both men and woman. I also live in the real world and sometimes it's better a child be given the best opportunities which means going against the points I've made, after all good and righteous people come in all forms; hang on I've just contradicted myself? But better a child be in a healthy environment than a care home, but heterosexual couples should be considered first in matters like this. Bullying may only be the first problem a child brought up in a gay house may suffer albeit a healthy and loving household, I also believe 'it' may also become confused as to their own sexuality. Say for instance a boy who is heterosexual, (see I've avoided the term straight), and is brought up by a gay male couple, he may feel the odd one, a wierdo for thinking about woman as most of his life he's been surrounded by gay men, not that there' s anything wrong in that, ummm? I guess it would be great for a young woman, fashion and style would be an endless hobby. For those men who have been brought up in a single household by their mum, did you not pine for your dad or become a bit of a handful without the guidance of a father figure? This goes for any other combination and be honest those who have must be truthful and recognise they have missed out on something. I'm not trying to sound like some full on gay hater as I'm not. Describing someone 'it' shows that I for one would be excluded by my own high standards and criteria on this topic. When people talk about the best interest of the child I cannot feel some mistrust toward their point, it generally ends with other people's rights and the kid's welfare gets lost along the way. As for the law I feel we are going down a path of something like fascist liberalism, if at anytimne we present an argument or reason against why there should be an 'equality in society' you're deemed a racist, homophobic, sexist, bigot, jingoist or xenophobic; just impossible other than to say yes sa, no sa, three bags full sa until we're all so confused and not sure what to do next while the politically correct police go one regardless.
Yuh, that is not it at all ... references to the "law of the land" were just a shorthand way of saying that religious considerations should be entirely excluded from civil matters, not that the law is always right. My personal opinion ... I think homosexual parents should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual ones, sexuality should not be a factor. If a gay couple really want kids enough to adopt then they'll probably make far better parents than many "unplanned" families do. As for single men and women adopting, I see no reason on principle not to allow it, but it should be decided case by case, and probably be the rare exception not the rule for all the reasons Peace mentioned...
