R. C. bishops: We'd rather see children suffer than acknowledge same-sex couples

[McBell]

"Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money. The charities have served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children.

The bishops have followed colleagues in Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts who had jettisoned their adoption services rather than comply with nondiscrimination laws."
source
​

I'm curious, do any Catholics here support this position?

I never did understand why the Catholic Church declares it acceptable for homosexuals to be priests, bishops, etc., but not parents...

 

[Me Myself]

Well, they're no longer holding inquisitions, persecuting heretics, financing crusades, or denouncing Jews, so I know change is possible.

This.

 

[Drolefille]

I never did understand why the Catholic Church declares it acceptable for homosexuals to be priests, bishops, etc., but not parents...

I disagree with them but their logical consistency is that an abstinent homosexual is as moral as an abstinent heterosexual. Chastity demands abstinence outside of marriage. Celibacy just demands abstinence completely. Depending on the vows you swear. As long as you follow them gay and straight people are supposed to be considered equal in their morality.

Children require marriage and marriage is mom and dad, etc. So no gay parenting. On the face it's consistent when it is applied to Catholics.

Because when quiddity nee victor says that it is about a "lifestyle" or ongoing sin, he's not really being accurate that it is different than any other sin. Catholic Charities cannot legally hold everyone to their standard and ethically it's highly questionable to die on this particular rock when they adopt to people of all religions without doing a sin-check on them. It's not their job to avoid sinners it's their job to adopt out children to legally qualified individuals.

Personally i think like abortion this is being done as a publicity /single-issue 'thing' just as the bishops who tell people they should be single issue voting is dumb and closeminded.

They hoped they'd win by dying on this rock, and now that thy've lost they don't know what to do about it other than complain. Sorry this is how state contracts work. I'm sorry for any workers that lose their jobs due to it though, it's not their fault.

 

[McBell]

I disagree with them but their logical consistency is that an abstinent homosexual is as moral as an abstinent heterosexual. Chastity demands abstinence outside of marriage. Celibacy just demands abstinence completely. Depending on the vows you swear. As long as you follow them gay and straight people are supposed to be considered equal in their morality.

If only the church was not shuffling these "homosexuals who have infiltrated the priesthood" (talking about the pedophiles) from one place to another continuously offering them fresh meat...
I might be able to buy into that.

Children require marriage and marriage is mom and dad, etc. So no gay parenting. On the face it's consistent when it is applied to Catholics.

Perhaps when applied to the outdated beliefs that the church is desperately trying to cling to...

Catholic Charities cannot legally hold everyone to their standard and ethically it's highly questionable to die on this particular rock when they adopt to people of all religions without doing a sin-check on them. It's not their job to avoid sinners it's their job to adopt out children to legally qualified individuals.

Seems to me the Church is losing its power and instead of adapting to that fact, it has decided to throw a little temper tantrum.
Sad that the church makes itself a hypocrite in process.

Personally i think like abortion this is being done as a publicity /single-issue 'thing' just as the bishops who tell people they should be single issue voting is dumb and closeminded.

They hoped they'd win by dying on this rock, and now that thy've lost they don't know what to do about it other than complain. Sorry this is how state contracts work. I'm sorry for any workers that lose their jobs due to it though, it's not their fault.

I agree.
It the children and those who thought hte church was above such petty childish temper tantrums that i feel for.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I was responding to someone who was talking about what the church deems a "mortal" sin. It would have to be murder or rape or some such thing. I'm not sure they consider being gay a mortal sin, wouldn't surprise me, but when they are more worried about a persons religion or sexual orientation than actual reprehensible behavior then there is a problem.

It's any "sin" that's a "grave matter" in the eyes of the Church, done as a deliberate action with full knowledge of what is being done and its "sinful" nature.

IIRC, the criterion for "grave matter" is the Ten Commandments. It would be a mortal sin for a Catholic to skip mass to watch a football game, or (AFAIK) for a person to steal a roll of toilet paper from a public restroom.

 

[Tristesse]

The Catholics in the article have spent a 140 years in the area helping take care of their poor in their area. All of you who criticizing them for not compromising their values and allowing gay couples to adopt, please tell me if you've done 1/1,000,000 of the good they have in your own community. Spare me the pedophile jokes while you're at it.

Well, first of all pedephilia isn't a joke, the catholic church is joke for not cooperating with law enforcement and shuffling these pedephile priests around. But aside from that, the catholic church has every right to be as bigoted as they want, but they don't get any government funds for being that way. It's the same reason the government wouldn't give any money to the KKK if they decided to have an adoption agnecy that descriminated against interracial couples or black couples. It's pretty simple, if you're going to be exclusive then you don't get government hand outs, the catholic church can raise their own money.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Well, first of all pedephilia isn't a joke, the catholic church is joke for not cooperating with law enforcement and shuffling these pedephile priests around. But aside from that, the catholic church has every right to be as bigoted as they want, but they don't get any government funds for being that way. It's the same reason the government wouldn't give any money to the KKK if they decided to have an adoption agnecy that descriminated against interracial couples or black couples. It's pretty simple, if you're going to be exclusive then you don't get government hand outs, the catholic church can raise their own money.

People can delude themselves all they want but comparing adoption rights between gays and civil rights for blacks is ridiculous. It only takes a little common sense to realize that children born of heterosexual sex need heterosexual parents if they're going to be as healthy as possible. The day gays figure out how to procreate I will demand that their offspring are raised strickly by gay parents. However, In a culture that worships sex like a god, demanding of such "rights" is inevitable

 

[McBell]

People can delude themselves all they want but comparing adoption rights between gays and civil rights for blacks is ridiculous. It only takes a little common sense to realize that children born of heterosexual sex need heterosexual parents if they're going to be as healthy as possible. The day gays figure out how to procreate I will demand that their offspring are raised strickly by gay parents. However, In a culture that worships sex like a god, demanding of such "rights" is inevitable

It is sad that you think there is any truth to this pile of flat out bull ****.

 

[Skwim]

People can delude themselves all they want but comparing adoption rights between gays and civil rights for blacks is ridiculous. It only takes a little common sense to realize that children born of heterosexual sex need heterosexual parents if they're going to be as healthy as possible. The day gays figure out how to procreate I will demand that their offspring are raised strickly by gay parents. However, In a culture that worships sex like a god, demanding of such "rights" is inevitable

A List Of Fallacious Arguments
Scroll down to "Common Sense."

 

[-Peacemaker-]

What's right and wrong become a little clearer when you ask yourselves how you'd want to be treated if it were your own children that needed to be rasied by another couple due to some unforseen circumstance arising that made raising them yourself impossible. I gaurantee that the heterosexual people here would choose heterosexual parents for their children if given a choice between them and gays.

 

[Drolefille]

What's right and wrong become a little clearer when you ask yourselves how you'd want to be treated if it were your own children that needed to be rasied by another couple due to some unforseen circumstance arising that made raising them yourself impossible. I gaurantee that the heterosexual people here would choose heterosexual parents for their children if given a choice between them and gays.

Even if that were true, which it isn't, people's prejudices aren't necessarily right.

 

[Skwim]

What's right and wrong become a little clearer when you ask yourselves how you'd want to be treated if it were your own children that needed to be rasied by another couple due to some unforseen circumstance arising that made raising them yourself impossible. I gaurantee that the heterosexual people here would choose heterosexual parents for their children if given a choice between them and gays.

And what have you got to make your so-called guarantee anything more than worthless? In any case, there are many homosexual couples I'd much rather have bring up my children than some of the scummy, irresponsible heterosexual couples I've seen.

 

[Photonic]

And what have you got to make your so-called guarantee anything more than worthless? In any case, there are many homosexual couples I'd much rather have bring up my children than some of the scummy, irresponsible heterosexual couples I've seen.

This thread is skirting deletion from my experience with past threads that went in this direction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What's right and wrong become a little clearer when you ask yourselves how you'd want to be treated if it were your own children that needed to be rasied by another couple due to some unforseen circumstance arising that made raising them yourself impossible. I gaurantee that the heterosexual people here would choose heterosexual parents for their children if given a choice between them and gays.

Hypothetically, if I had children and then couldn't raise them myself, I'd want them to be raised by the most loving, capable adoptive parents possible. This could very well mean them being adopted by a same-sex couple.

What I certainly wouldn't want is to compromise on the things that actually matter in the name of my children's adoptive parents having different genitalia.

 

[Skwim]

This thread is skirting deletion from my experience with past threads that went in this direction.

You may be right. I just get tired of empty rhetoric.

Thanks for the heads-up.

 

[Draka]

I think it's simply a matter of following laws for funding. No one is saying they had to shut their doors. They weren't forced. They had options. They could find another way to raise the funds to continue the work they were doing if they wanted to continue in the manner they had been, OR they could comply with anti-discrimination laws and continue to receive government funding. They weren't forced to do anything. If helping children were that important to them, if placing kids into homes was that important, and they could not continue to run on their own funding and needed the government funding, they would have complied with the laws. Obviously, they found that it was more important to them to discriminate than to continue to help children. That's too bad, but it was their choice alone. No forcing done.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Let's get a little more specific with my hypothetical question about who you'd want to raise your kids. The choice is not between a loving gay couple and an abusive heterosexual couple that's addicted to crack. The only variable is sexual orientation. Heterosexuals here know damn well that they'd choose the heterosexual couple to raise their child over the gay one.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

And what have you got to make your so-called guarantee anything more than worthless? In any case, there are many homosexual couples I'd much rather have bring up my children than some of the scummy, irresponsible heterosexual couples I've seen.

It's pretty simple. God/nature chose heterosexuals to be parents as evidenced by the fact that only they can procreate. I'll place my bet on the heterosexual couple being best equipped to raise a well-balanced, healthy child.

 

[Draka]

Let's get a little more specific with my hypothetical question about who you'd want to raise your kids. The choice is not between a loving gay couple and an abusive heterosexual couple that's addicted to crack. The only variable is sexual orientation. Heterosexuals here know damn well that they'd choose the heterosexual couple to raise their child over the gay one.

It would depend on each couple. Like whether they are good with my kids, if we share a lot of the same ideals and goals when it comes to childrearing, religious ideas, prejudices that may be passed on to my kids and so on and so forth. There are a lot of factors to consider when determining who you'd like to leave as guardians of your children. To me, orientation isn't really a factor. So, no, your assertion doesn't really hold water. Parents that would care about who raises their children would have a lot more criteria than whether or not a couple is a man and a woman, or 2 women or 2 men. If 2 men fulfill the list of desirables more than a male and female couple, then they would be the best choice. Personally, I wouldn't have issue with a same sex couple taking care of my kids. As long as they were good to them and took care of them like I would, that would be what matters most.

 

[Draka]

It's pretty simple. God/nature chose heterosexuals to be parents as evidenced by the fact that only they can procreate. I'll place my bet on the heterosexual couple being best equipped to raise a well-balanced, healthy child.

Homosexuals can't procreate? Hmm, I've never heard of anything that biologically interferes with the reproductive organs' abilities to function simply because of sexual orientation. There some new data I'm not aware of? Because as far as I know, homosexual people's reproductive organs seem to function just like heterosexual people's. Does the same hindrance you speak of also interfere with bisexuals' ability to procreate? :sarcastic