Opposing gay adoption

[Sojourner]

Here's an interesting post from [url="http://www.mirrorofjustice.com"]Mirror of Justice[/url] on the Massachusetts bishops request to exclude gay couples from adoptions facilitated through Catholic Charities.

[quote]I was hoping someone would respond to Eduardo's earlier question on the Massachusetts bishops' attempt to gain an exemption allowing Catholic Charities to categorically exclude gay couples from adoption.  I generally resist state efforts to impose contested moral norms on religious groups, but I'm troubled by the bishops' decision to contest this moral norm, at least to the extent that it impacts the well-being of children.  This [url="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/02/16/bishops_to_oppose_adoption_by_gays/?page=1"]news report [/url]underscores, in my view, the difficulty with the bishops' position:
[quote]Of the 720 adoptions handled by Catholic Charities of Boston since 1987, roughly 60 percent involve foster children with the DSS, and 40 percent are babies and children who come into the agency from individual families.

Of the approximately 430 foster children adopted through Catholic Charities during that time period, 13 were placed with same-sex couples, said Virginia Reynolds, a spokeswoman for the agency.

They were all children who had been abused or neglected and were considered hard to place because they are older or have special needs, Reynolds said.[/quote]
It is easier to understand the Church's opposition to civil marriage being opened to homosexuals if we understand marriage as not just a reflection of human relationships as they are, but as an aspirational statement of relationships as they should be. (There is still the potentially insurmountable problem of translating the aspirational quality of marriage from a religious notion into an aspiration that resonates in non-religious terms.) [b]But for adoption, it seems that we need to view public policy as a reflection of reality, not aspiration: there are abused and neglected children who are very difficult to place in loving environments. Why would we want to categorically preclude a segment of the population from providing such environments simply because the Church's ideal form of relationship is not reflected in that environment[/b]?

If the Massachusetts bishops' opposition to gay adoption under all circumstances emanates from the same aspirational norm as the opposition to gay marriage, that seems problematic. But if the opposition emanates from a conviction that the discernible measures of children's well-being are negatively impacted in gay adoption scenarios such that those adoptions should be precluded outright, then it seems that it will boil down to a battle of empirical studies. So would the bishops drop their opposition if a study showed that children of gay couples can thrive under the criteria that generally apply to measure children's well-being, or would the bishops argue that the children of gay couples are, by the very nature of their environment, not capable of thriving?[/quote]
I'm particularly interested in hearing people's thoughts on the bolded portion.

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 24 2006, 11:48 AM']
If the Massachusetts bishops' opposition to gay adoption under all circumstances emanates from the same aspirational norm as the opposition to gay marriage, that seems problematic. But if the opposition emanates from a conviction that the discernible measures of children's well-being are negatively impacted in gay adoption scenarios such that those adoptions should be precluded outright, then it seems that it will boil down to a battle of empirical studies. So would the bishops drop their opposition if a study showed that children of gay couples can thrive under the criteria that generally apply to measure children's well-being, or would the bishops argue that the children of gay couples are, by the very nature of their environment, not capable of thriving?[/quote]
I'm particularly interested in hearing people's thoughts on the bolded portion.
[right][snapback]896676[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Tell me if I'm getting this right...

They are saying that he does not want the Bishops to go through with there thought on adoption because the children (they think) are better off with same sex partners then at an orphanage?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' date='Feb 24 2006, 02:20 PM']
Tell me if I'm getting this right...

They are saying that he does not want the Bishops to go through with there thought on adoption because the children (they think) are better off with same sex partners then at an orphanage?
[right][snapback]896705[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, the kids wouldn't be in an orphanage -- they'd likely be in foster care -- but that's the general idea, yes.

[Didacus]

I believe the boldedf sectioin to be a sort of 'Red Herring' fallacy.


The real issue at stake here is not the question of a 'loving environment' but the respect of church teachings, and church organisations that genuinely believe and follow these teachings.

This is the same question posed in Canada's 'same-sex'[ marriage that states these marriages shall not be forced upno the Catholic community.

Just as the church is not forced to break its own rules for the sake of performing same-sex 'marriage' they should not be forced to support adoption of children with same-sex couples.

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 24 2006, 12:24 PM']Well, the kids wouldn't be in an orphanage -- they'd likely be in foster care -- but that's the general idea, yes.
[right][snapback]896707[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

omg...i actually got it right! lol

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

Hmmm... Can someone who is familiar with adoption law answer my question? My question is if particular children are set up with an adoption agency and the agency is in charge of finding foster parents for the kids or is there a pool of all children up for adoption and the agencies just 'match up' parents with kids? If it's the latter, I see no problem with CC denying to work with same-sex couples as those couples could adopt the same child through a different service. If it's the former scenario, I can see that there is a problem as the child is a ward of the state and would have to follow state guidelines for placing children.

[cmotherofpirl]

If kids are taken by CYF thy are wards of the state.

[ironmonk]

Adoption should only be given to a married man and woman.

Children should not be given to single people or people who have a same sex attraction disorder.

[quote] Church's ideal form of relationship [/quote]

It does not have to deal with the "Church's ideal form of relationship" it has to deal with what is healthy for the child, physically, emotionally, and most of all spiritually. In years past when it wasn't even considered for children to be given to people with the same sex attraction disorder the children did fine. The problem with the system is that there are thousands of parents who would be good parents yet the system keeps them from adopting and they have to go out of country to do so.

Children are not a right. They are a gift from God.

[quote][b]2378 [/b]
A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."

[b]2379 [/b]
The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.
[/quote]


God Bless,
ironmonk