Catholic Charities Mixes Politics with Community Services

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

One may make the argument that segregation was persued because segregationists believed it was bad for whites to be in the company of blacks because it may "lower" them.

[Boris Godunov]

Zevico: why you are trying to help dig BK out from his lie, I can only guess, but I suggest you follow your own advice and "Read his post again," as in the one in which he asserts that the state is barring Catholics from adopting. The state to which he is referring to is clearly Illinois, and the circumstances the Illinois decision not to fund adoption services that discriminate. My question to him about who was being barred was clearly in reference to that situation. not, "who is being barred anywhere in the world?" His citing the UK case as a response is therefore a false flag, as that case does not in any way support his assertion that Illinois was barring Catholics from adopting. And BK didn't even bring it up in the context of the rights of religious people to adopt, he brought it up in the context of an argument about the shortage of adoptive parents, to try and claim that Illinois was somehow barring Catholics from adopting and therefore increasing gap between foster children and potential adoptive parents.

[Zevico]

Good lord. I am trying to get to the crux of the issue and (heaven forbid) invite a reply on the issue rather than an attack on BK. Is that so difficult to understand?

As to this:

So if there's a chronic shortage, why is the state barring devout Catholics from adopting? It was never about the kids to begin with, but everything about the parents. That's the problem with the system as it is. It cares very little about the best interests of the children.

It is, plainly enough, nonsense, as Illinois has no such policy or law. I'll leave BK to make excuses for it.

[Dr Strangelove]

I read the article, then traced it back to an original article run by BBC in 2008. The council asked them how they would respond if a 10 year old in their care came to them and complained that he had been picked on because he was a homosexual. They replied that they would not be able to be supportive of his presumably established gender identity. In effect they would have to admonish him for his behavior and in effect give support to the bullies. In the video accompanying the linked article the wife states that they would give any child under thei care the same love, yet in 2008 they stated to the council that they would look upon a gay child as bad. The courts decided that they couldn't really offer equal love to the child whom they would pre-judge.

[Boris Godunov]

Good lord. I am trying to get to the crux of the issue and (heaven forbid) invite a reply on the issue rather than an attack on BK. Is that so difficult to understand?

Well, perhaps it's difficult to understand because you jumped in on my exchange with BK that was specifically about his claim that Illinois was barring Catholics from adopting children and then proceeded to try and justify the linkage of the UK article to this case as if it had any relevance. I cannot understand how the UK story relates to the crux of this thread at all, other than involving the words "gay" and "adoption."

If the argument is that the state of IL might go the way of England because of its decision not to provide taxpayer funds (note: not legally abolish) for adoption services that discriminate in a manner prohibited by state law, then I have to wonder if the person making such an argument is aware of what the Slippery Slope fallacy is.

[Zevico]

Well, perhaps it's difficult to understand because you jumped in on my exchange with BK that was specifically about his claim that Illinois was barring Catholics from adopting children and then proceeded to try and justify the linkage of the UK article to this case as if it had any relevance. I cannot understand how the UK story relates to the crux of this thread at all, other than involving the words "gay" and "adoption."

If the argument is that the state of IL might go the way of England because of its decision not to provide taxpayer funds (note: not legally abolish) for adoption services that discriminate in a manner prohibited by state law, then I have to wonder if the person making such an argument is aware of what the Slippery Slope fallacy is.

I apologise for any misunderstanding caused by my carelessness. It's a bad habit.
Still, as to the second paragraph, I'm not sure. The logic or way of thinking seems to me to be quite similar in both cases. It's not an issue of a "slope" as such. Consider:
1. Prospective foster parents denied right of fostering children as they might not be supportive towards homosexual children;
2. Prospective adoptive parents denied the same right for the same reason.

What are your thoughts on the first and second of these matters?

[Ben Kenobi]

And, what a shock, that's not what that article actually says.

What, do I have to post the whole article to prove you are a liar? But then we already knew that. First you claim no evidence, now you debate the relevancy. You concede the point at hand.

If someone were a devout Catholic is there a way that they could teach their values to their adopted children without running afoul of government regulations? If people can be rejected because of what their faith teaches, that's all I have to prove, and I've done just that.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

The reason they were rejected is because they believed and taught their children that homosexuality is wrong. Funny how Boris studiously avoids mentioning *that*. Last I checked this is the same thing that the Catholic church teaches, and would ensnare devout Catholics just as easily as Pentecostals.

They rejected suggestions that the case involved "a threat to religious liberty"

"Boris, did you steal from the cookie jar?"

"No."

What else are they going to say? That they want Catholics to be barred from adoption altogether? It doesn't matter what they say, it matters what they actually did, and that was bar an adoption to a Christian couple for rejecting homosexuality. Which is why the article created such an uproar in the first place.

Fourth, the reason BK posted it is because he got caught in yet another lie

More like, Ben Kenobi remembers said article but doesn't remember where he read it or when...

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Logic *****es. That is precisely my argument and I'm glad to see that my thoughts are getting through clearly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Dr. Strangelove:

A link would be grand to prove your assertion....

[Asher]

Ben, you are fooling no one but our intellectually challenged Aussie Christian Ameriphile.

Boris has schooled you so hard that you're still trying to figure out what happened.

[Zevico]

Ben, you are fooling no one but our intellectually challenged Aussie Christian Ameriphile.

In this sentence you've made a number of assumptions.

First, you assume I have been fooled by Ben. In other words, I "agree" with Ben. But what do I agree with him about, exactly? I've given no indication that I either disagree or agree with Ben. I've merely summarised his arguments and invited comment on them. Boris replied with what is essentially a two word argument: "slippery slope." I found this argument unappealing, simply because he [Ben] is not making an argument that is specifically to do with the Illinois case, but (in fact) is raising a different if related issue. That issue is raised in the question he posed to you earlier: whether you think instructing children that homosexuality is wrong is a form of child abuse and, if so, whether you think Catholics should be permitted to foster or adopt children. (Really the logic applies to raising them as well but let's keep things simple).

I summarised the issue at hand. That's it. From all this you have divined that I agree with him (without referring to the subject matter of the agreement), am intellectually challenged, Christian and an Ameriphile. I cannot speak to what I agree or disagree with Ben about without being told what the subject at hand is (and you've defined none). Your opinion on my intellect does not interest me; it is your opinion on the topic at hand that interests me. The topic has shifted. Heaven forbid that it might do so.

As to your other assumptions:
- I do not expect to have the honour of being a Christian in my lifetime.
- As to Amerophilia, I can only wonder at what on earth it has do with the subject at hand. One may as well raise the price of fish in China to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity.

I commend you, sir, on your apt deductive abilities.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, you are fooling no one but our intellectually challenged Aussie Christian Ameriphile

I do not expect to have the honour of being a Christian in my lifetime

I commend you, sir, on your apt deductive abilities.

Asher, I assure you with Boris on deck, you're still stuck in the dugout.

PWNT

[giblets]

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.

What? How about "we have no idea if the laws in England and America are quite the same". Ben apparently couldn't find any examples of this happening in the country that was actually being discussed so he looked for one in ****ing Europe as if that's supposed to prove something.

[Zevico]

What? How about "we have no idea if the laws in England and America are quite the same". Ben apparently couldn't find any examples of this happening in the country that was actually being discussed so he looked for one in ****ing Europe as if that's supposed to prove something.

If Ben intended to prove something by posting and citing that article, he would say what he intended to prove. He has not said that this article proves anything about the American political situation. If you can identify what he wants to prove, then do tell.
Otherwise, as far as I can tell, his purpose is to raise a question: namely, whether the English law is acceptable to you and whether you think that your State should legislate to implement that law. Or, put more broadly, whether you think those who adhere to Ben's beliefs on homosexuality should be permitted to raise or care for children, adopted, fostered or otherwise.