Catholic Charities Mixes Politics with Community Services

[giblets]

The difference here is that the Catholics believe it is bad for the children to be raised by a gay couple. It's not how the gay couple is being treated, it's about the child.

They should provide some evidence that it's actually bad for the child. The government should not pay any heed to superstitions.

[Ben Kenobi]

They should provide some evidence that it's actually bad for the child. The government should not pay any heed to superstitions.

Indeed. Is there any evidence that the prior policy was harmful to children? Where's the evidence in favour of the change?

[Boris Godunov]

So if there's a chronic shortage, why is the state barring devout Catholics from adopting?

Wait, who's barring Catholics from adopting? Are you making **** up again?

[giblets]

Wait, who's barring Catholics from adopting? Are you making **** up again?

Why even talk to him? He doesn't want to engage in an honest discussion.

[MrFun]

The difference here is that the Catholics believe it is bad for the children to be raised by a gay couple. It's not how the gay couple is being treated, it's about the child.

Along the same line with gribbler, you want to base a claim like this on superstition rather than on facts and evidence?

[Boris Godunov]

The difference here is that the Catholics believe it is bad for the children to be raised by a gay couple. It's not how the gay couple is being treated, it's about the child.

Given the dogma of the Catholic Church, what they obviously should be forbidding is adoption of children by non-Catholics. Even being raised by a gay Catholic couple as a Catholic should be abundantly preferable than being raised in another faith that will lead the child to Hell.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wait, who's barring Catholics from adopting? Are you making **** up again?

England, apparently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896

[Boris Godunov]

England, apparently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896

And, what a shock, that's not what that article actually says. Of course, we'd also wonder what relevance the UK had to the case in the OP, but since we know you're a habitual liar, there's really no need to ask.

[MrFun]

exactly

[Barnabas]

Homosexual marriage is a social innovation of the last 10 years, Catholic Charities are much older. Should they be forced to adapt themselves to a new social institution?

[Asher]

They don't have to. Unless they get funding from the government. Then yes, they must adhere to government laws and policies if they are taking government money.

[Zevico]

And, what a shock, that's not what that article actually says. Of course, we'd also wonder what relevance the UK had to the case in the OP, but since we know you're a habitual liar, there's really no need to ask.

What does it say, and what do you think BK meant when he posted it?

Along the same line with gribbler, you want to base a claim like this on superstition rather than on facts and evidence?

Read his post again. Then a third time if you don't understand it yet.
Put shortly, to say "I understand what this organisation is doing and why it is doing it" is different from saying "I agree with their views"

[Barnabas]

They don't have to. Unless they get funding from the government. Then yes, they must adhere to government laws and policies if they are taking government money.

I didn't know the money part.

[Boris Godunov]

What does it say, and what do you think BK meant when he posted it?

It says the opposite of his assertion that Catholics were barred from adopting. First, it doesn't even mention Catholics, as the couple was Pentecostal. Second:

They rejected suggestions that the case involved "a threat to religious liberty", adding: "No one is asserting that Christians - or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims - are not fit and proper persons to foster or adopt. No-one is contending for a blanket ban."

Third, it has *nothing* to do with the situation in Illinois, given they're not even in the same country.

Fourth, the reason BK posted it is because he got caught in yet another lie and scrambled for something to cover his ass. But, as always, his interpretation of it is completely wrong and it doesn't even pertain to the discussion at hand nor the question that I asked. He is a fundamentally dishonest person who does this time and again, so you should stop trying to provide cover for him.

[Zevico]

I'll try to break this down to several discrete assertions.

It says the opposite of his assertion that Catholics were barred from adopting.

First, it doesn't even mention Catholics, as the couple was Pentecostal.

[From the linked article]: They rejected suggestions that the case involved "a threat to religious liberty", adding: "No one is asserting that Christians - or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims - are not fit and proper persons to foster or adopt. No-one is contending for a blanket ban."

Irrelevant. On this subject matter, Ben implicitly asserts that there is no difference in the views of this couple and his own.
Ben asserts that he, a person who calls himself a 'Catholic', would adhere to the view espoused by this couple on this particular issue. Possibly others who call themselves 'Catholics', might disagree and be entitled to fostering a child under English law (hence "Catholics", whatever they be, are not precluded from adopting per se), but that is not relevant to Ben and his viewpoint.

Ben asserts that he would be precluded from adopting a child under English law. This is a slight error of as we don't know if the laws of adoption and fostering are quite the same, though, on the other hand, it is not so unreasonable to suppose that they might be.
In sum, Ben asserts that a similar but not identical scenario might arise under American law, wherein persons who adhere to his beliefs would be precluded from adopting children altogether because that might endanger their welfare should they prove to be homosexuals. Ben (obviously) asserts that this is unacceptable.
Lastly (not chronologically, but in this summary), Ben asks whether Asher agrees that Ben's views, if impressed upon a child raised by Ben, could constitute a form of child abuse if the child were homosexual.