largely gay profession prejudiced agains gays

Hilarious and sad news today that Cardinal Cormack Murphy O'Connor has written to all MPs asking for exemption for Catholic adoption agencies for the government's anti-descrimination legislation.

It strikes me as terribly ironic that a profession which has such a large percentage of gays should be so prejudiced - but am I really surprised? Sadly no ...

 

What the cardinal is asking for to me makes sense.
I am all for gay couples having the right to cohabit and the same rights as hetero sexual couples in the eyes of the law.
I am however firmly against gay couples adopting. The normal stable relationship in a family is Mother, Father and children. I am not a psychologist, however I believe that we have insufficient knowledge to prove that a child is not psychologically damaged when brought up by same sex couples.
When same sex couples evolve to a point where reproduction can occur naturally, then perhaps I will rethink my thoughts on gay adoption.

 

The Cardinal is being a hypocrite. Catholic adoption agencies currently have no problem allowing SINGLE gay people (or straight people, for that matter) to adopt, nor do they have any problem in accepting taxpayer subsidies to perform this public role.

The actual question should always be: what is in the best interests of the children?

The evidence to date shows that the most important thing for children is to be raised in a caring, stable, loving environment, regardless of whether that comprises a traditional heterosexual household, gay household or living with single parents. The ideal is a mother and a father: boys need a male role model just as girls need a female role model, however in the absence of a suitable supply of ideal candidates to adopt older and often difficult children, the preference is for suitable parents of whatever category in preference to a child living in care. The latter has a seriously damaging impact upon the life chances of a child (and incidentally increases the risk of criminality).

My understanding of the law, in any event is, that gays can only adopt as a last resort, if suitable heterosexual parents or single parents are unavailable. And that is as it should be.

I personally used to agree with you Slim but have been told too often by those working in the field (professionals) that my conservative views on this are wrong : care homes are not a preferable option to gay adoption if that is the ONLY option available. (Note: that's conservative with a small 'c') :wink:

 

How could kids of same sex parents' possibly not be mentally affected?
If sexual deviants' want to get it on with people of the same sex, fine. If they want to pretend to be a married couple, fine. Bring up kids??? That's just not right, that's where the word queer comes from, strange, abnormal, not right.

 

Its not only gay adoption that I am against. i am not really sure if single parent adoption (whether gay or straight) is really a good thing. Bringing up children is difficult even when two parents are around. My daughter (divorced) is a single working mother with three kids. She gets extremely stressed out when things go wrong and at least two or three times a year either my wife or I travel to her home 100 miles away for a few days to look after an ill child so that she can continue working. All kids deserve a stable family to grow up in. I do not believe that the prejudices prevalent in the community against gay couples can give a child this stability.

 

What evidence there is to date (limited for obvious reasons) suggests that what problems arise are due to societal prejudice rather than anything psychologically damaging. Boys brought up by two lesbians have not become gay. Likewise, for the record, I did not grow up straight despite having two straight parents! Wot went wrong? :???: :wink: :lol: Interestingly despite my dad being in the RAF, I also never felt any affinity for the Crabs either. Strange er?

'...that's where the word queer comes from, strange, abnormal, not right.'

Unlike w*nking into a sock, using a condom or stroking puss?

 

There are so many children young and teens that need loving homes why dose it matter what sex the parents are...........
In this day and age we need to grow with society not hold it back........
There are far more important things to worry about than who is sleeping with whom.....................

 

I personally agree with Always. Again, all for the equal rights, but children...? Hmm. Having loving parents is always preferable to having no parents. But it seems to me (my opinion only!) that wanting children in a gay partnership is like they're not entirely comfortable in their own sexuality, like they're trying to regain some aspects of the heterosexual life that they think, or are made to feel like, they should.
Heterosexual relationships are about reproduction. Simple as. We might have evolved to be able to make choices and distract ourselves from the task nature intends, but that's really what straight relationships are about.
I know nothing about gay parents, only that i had a friend who had a gay mum. And... well, maybe she isn't a great example. I don't know if it affected her. But that was a different situation, that was her real mum. I'm sure she was a good parent and all.
I'm not thinking "it's not normal" or anything, but that sometimes we just need to simplify things.

 

Well put Snappy.

 

Gay rights, what about the kids then don`t they have any rights?
Children have the basic right to a mother and father and that’s not prejudice… that’s common dog.

…

 

Some of you have mentioned that children and teens need loving homes, yes that is correct, but how could they achieve that if they are living in a same sex household. I state this as what sort of life would those kids have considering the piss taking they would get from other kids and their parents?????

 

I am not sure that it does. I suspect the general opposition to same sex couples bringing up children is that it will make the kids into queers, if this premise were correct there would be far less queers tha we have at present because most couples are heterosexual and thus brining up kids in such an environment will make them straight. Clearly this does not happen.

Whilst I would agree that many same sex couples should not be involved in the bringing up of children the same can be said of hetero couples too, which is why there are so many hoops for any couple to jump through to be allowed to adopt in this country. I would suggest that any couple however they are made up who can become'approved' is sutable, and it would be wrong to allow the Catholic Church (whos reputation in reponsible child care has often fallen below what many of us woul;d consider acceptable) to discriminate. I fear their opposition is rooted in religious dogma rather than a genuine care for the children.

 

Yes... up a point, though the issue of whom sleeps with whom is an issue if there's a risk of child sexual abuse arising. To be honest children would be safest if brought up by two lesbians as most victims of CSA are girls abused by male relatives. However there is a widespread belief that gays are more likely to be child abusers and this may complicate the lives of children, especially boys, raised by gay men to an undesirable degree.

At the end of the day, what matters is the welfare of the child not the wishes of potential adopters, politicians or the church. In time if objective evidence demonstrates that gay adoption is unsuitable, the law can be reversed, if not, then we may have a few dozen more better-adjusted adults in later years.

The most obvious priority should be to move children out of Catholic care homes into secular ones however, to protect them for institutional abuse. We should not forget that the majority of the Priests' and nuns' child victims in the Republic of Ireland were ,after all, girls, something the church has glossed over in seeking to blame the whole problem on "gay" priests. If O'Connor is really concerned with child welfare he will call for this to happen. Of course, he won't! :evil:

 

Absolutely- there are loads of people who concieve children who absolutely would never ever be able to adopt. I'm sure gay adoption is even more difficult to get through.

Maybe we need to be sorting out the problem of why children are put up for adoption before we question who adopts.

 

Maybe we should shit can adoption and go back to workhouses, then these kids could be trained to do the jobs that immigrants are doing, get ex service types to train them with discipline and pride. Hmm.

 

I think in these just as other areas stereotyping is dangerous because it does mean that those who pehaps should not pass muster do, it just like concentrating on Arab looking people when seeking terrorists and then finding your next bomber was in fact a Ghanaian, black as the etc, didn't look like an Arab at all. Telling some poor mite that has been abused that you thought it was OK because women are mot as commonly abusers is little help. Hence my suggestion that firstly every one does go through the hoops and then you select from those that pass only.

Certainly the Cathlics record with childrens homes is not good, though there is perhaps an upside, some of the most anti religious people I have met had a Catholic education.

Peter

 

So yet again society rules............ more like small mindedness rules
As someone already said ...child abusers come in all forms ..And not all married couples want or need children... Marrige is about love.... sharing ones thoughts. ones dreams........ children are a bonus to that.......

Many same sex couples have been together as long if not longer than us so called "norms" how can that be "unstable"???????

 

You mean give then all the the Catholics, they seem to have had the most recent experience in running that kind of place.

 

Indeed :grin:

 

Predictably (when I saw the title of the thread) a couple of posts deleted. The detail and merits of homosexual sex can be discussed in chat or in Lil's.

Golden Rivet wrote

How large a percentage and how do you know? Remember the profession of which you speak is the clergy, not just Catholic priests. Do any of the gay clergy (Catholic or otherwise) have a view contrary to what seems to be the mainstream Catholic view?