Catholic Charities Mixes Politics with Community Services

[Dr Strangelove]

I will re-iterate, the issue in question was foster parenting, not adoption, and what the couple were asked is how they would respond to a child who had already established a homosexual gender identity. The couple replied that they could not condone the child's gender identity. Would it not be reasonable to conclude that their fostering would be harmful to the child? Sure, there are natural (non-foster)parents out there who have trouble accepting their children's homosexual gender identity, but the difference here is that in the foster system the government shares responsibility for the child's welfare. A foster parent simply acts as an agent for the government much in the same way as an employee at a children's group home.

I don't know about the UK but in most areas of the US it's been traditional to match a child with adoptive or foster parents of similar cultural backgrounds, i.e., usually a Jewish child would be placed in a Jewish home, a Muslim child in a Muslim home. To try to match a hmosexual child with homosexual adoptive or foster parents would be dificult because the agency would often not know the child's gender identity preference or at the time of placement the child might not have established a preference.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I bet if it was a black lesbian jewish couple, they would have a hard time to get the baby with the right credentials.

[Boris Godunov]

What, do I have to post the whole article to prove you are a liar? But then we already knew that.

What? You state a bald-faced lie about the state of Illinois (one even Zevico has called you on), and you accuse *me* of lying? Your hypocrisy and dishonesty continue to be limitless, it seems.

First you claim no evidence, now you debate the relevancy. You concede the point at hand.

No, you lying douchebag. You asserted via a question that the state of Illinois was somehow barring Catholics from adopting children. I asked you to support that assertion via my own "who is barring Catholics from adopting?" question, to which you posted an article about a Pentecostal couple in England being denied the ability to foster a child. That this article is irrelevant to your ludicrous and false assertion that Illinois (or anyone else) was barring Catholics from adopting children for being Catholic is self-evident. I've conceded nothing, because you've utterly failed to demonstrate that what you claimed is true, because it is simply false. You lied, full stop.

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.

Your definition of what it means to be a Catholic is not the universal one. At any rate, that is not the issue at hand here, as the story you cited from the UK is not about adoption, it's about foster care. If you don't comprehend the difference between those two, then that's your fault for being a moron.

[Boris Godunov]

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.

One does not need to believe homosexuality is wrong to be a Catholic:

Most U.S. Catholics are supportive of gay rights

Your ignorant arrogance in speaking for all Catholics is not surprising.

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.

You continue to lie. The UK story did not reference adoption, you dishonest tool.

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

No, because as noted several times, the article you cited has absolutely nothing to do with the situation in Illinois, nor does it in any way substantiate your like that Illinois as somehow barred Catholics from adopting children.

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

No, it wasn't. You lie yet again. Your argument was that Illinois was somehow barring Catholics from adopting, and when caught in that lie, you tried to change the subject.

And, lest it has not sunk in yet, there's nothing even in English law precluding you from adopting based on this story, since it didn't even concern adoption.

[Boris Godunov]

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?

Fostering and adoption are very different things.

In foster care, the state is the legal guardian of the child, not the foster family. They are charged with carrying out the will of the state when it comes to raising the child. In that light, the state deciding that anti-gay views aren't acceptable among foster parents because they run afoul of state-mandated anti-discrimination policies is perfectly reasonable.

In adoption, the adoptive parents assume the actual legal guardian status and thus are afforded the standard leeway of all parents to instill their cultural values in their child. Therein lies the key difference, as foster kids are NOT the child of the foster parents.

[Boris Godunov]

I don't know about the UK but in most areas of the US it's been traditional to match a child with adoptive or foster parents of similar cultural backgrounds, i.e., usually a Jewish child would be placed in a Jewish home, a Muslim child in a Muslim home. To try to match a hmosexual child with homosexual adoptive or foster parents would be dificult because the agency would often not know the child's gender identity preference or at the time of placement the child might not have established a preference.

You can bet that BK would scream bloody murder if he discovered an incident where a Muslim couple was able to foster a Catholic child where they had declared their intent to teach him that Catholicism was wrong and raise him as Muslim.

[Fake Boris]

Ben

[Zevico]

Fostering and adoption are very different things.

In foster care, the state is the legal guardian of the child, not the foster family. They are charged with carrying out the will of the state when it comes to raising the child. In that light, the state deciding that anti-gay views aren't acceptable among foster parents because they run afoul of state-mandated anti-discrimination policies is perfectly reasonable.

In adoption, the adoptive parents assume the actual legal guardian status and thus are afforded the standard leeway of all parents to instill their cultural values in their child. Therein lies the key difference, as foster kids are NOT the child of the foster parents.

I understand the distinction you seek to make. In your view, parents have a "cultural right" (as do all parents) to teach certain values to their children. Were they foster parents, they would have no such "cultural right", as they would not be counted as parents at all.
From whence does the justification for this cultural right derive?

[Zevico]

I will re-iterate, the issue in question was foster parenting, not adoption, and what the couple were asked is how they would respond to a child who had already established a homosexual gender identity.

Dr S:

Thank you for your serious reply to this issue.

While I admire your attempt to address one issue, I am reticent to discuss the particular facts of this case. I wouldn't want to do so without reading the case report, as court reporting and legal journalism is in my experience inaccurate.

In other words, I don't know whether we're in a good position to debate the facts of this particular case.

Nevertheless,let's go with what we have, even if it is only (for my part) for the purpose of thinking about this issue rather than thinking about the UK's political/legal stance on homosexuality as such.

Would it not be reasonable to conclude that their fostering would be harmful to the child?

Harmful enough to deprive prospective foster parents of custody? If so, what if the natural parents of the child were of the same view? Should the same consequence follow? If so or not, why?

Sure, there are natural (non-foster)parents out there who have trouble accepting their children's homosexual gender identity, but the difference here is that in the foster system the government shares responsibility for the child's welfare. A foster parent simply acts as an agent for the government much in the same way as an employee at a children's group home.

I'm not sure that I'm convinced by the agency argument. Shouldn't the law regard the welfare of any child as paramount to the concerns of the parents? If we accept that such instruction constitutes harm to the child, why should it matter if the child's parents are natural or foster parents?

[Boris Godunov]

I understand the distinction you seek to make. In your view, parents have a "cultural right" (as do all parents) to teach certain values to their children. Were they foster parents, they would have no such "cultural right", as they would not be counted as parents at all.
From whence does the justification for this cultural right derive?

That's not "my view," that's the actual legal position of foster parents vs. adoptive parents. Foster parents act as agents of the state and are obligated to follow state regulations regarding the fostering of the children. Adoptive parents do not have that obligation, any more than biological parents do. The fact that parents, whether adoptive or biological, have the right to raise their children with the moral and cultural values they choose is simply one of the most long-standing ones in our society, so I don't feel a need to argue it.

[Zevico]

That's not "my view," that's the actual legal position of foster parents vs. adoptive parents. Foster parents act as agents of the state and are obligated to follow state regulations regarding the fostering of the children. Adoptive parents do not have that obligation, any more than biological parents do. The fact that parents, whether adoptive or biological, have the right to raise their children with the moral and cultural values they choose is simply one of the most long-standing ones in our society, so I don't feel a need to argue it.

"I don't feel a need to argue it" because its "tradition" or the "way it always was" is just unthinking hogwash. But I can hardly force you to answer anyway.

[giblets]

"I don't feel a need to argue it" because its "tradition" or the "way it always was" is just unthinking hogwash. But I can hardly force you to answer anyway.

I thought the whole argument was over whether christian nutjobs are in fact being prevented from adopting kids. Not whether they should or shouldn't.

[Zevico]

I thought the whole argument was over whether christian nutjobs are in fact being prevented from adopting kids. Not whether they should or shouldn't.

No. Leaving aside careless or poor use of language on BK's part which might lead one to think otherwise, that's not the issue at hand.

[MrFun]

At any rate, that is not the issue at hand here, as the story you cited from the UK is not about adoption, it's about foster care. If you don't comprehend the difference between those two, then that's your fault for being a moron.

[Boris Godunov]

"I don't feel a need to argue it" because its "tradition" or the "way it always was" is just unthinking hogwash. But I can hardly force you to answer anyway.

No more so than the traditional and cultural right to freedom of religious, political or any other ideological belief needs to be argued. Tell me, what exactly would be the point of hashing out centuries (if not millennia) of cultural, societal and legal norms that firmly establish a broad right for parents to teach their children values as they see fit?

I don't object to the right of parents to teach their kids not to approve of homosexuality. I don't like that it happens, but that's life. The best we can do is work to change their minds once they're old enough to think for themselves, and build enough cultural antipathy to such ideas that they're forever regulated to the fringe of society. At the same time, such people have no right to prevent homosexuals or anyone else from instilling the opposite value in their kids. And that's the real crux of the anti-gay adoption issue. The claim that it's because they strongly believe kids should have a mother and father is a smokescreen, and the insinuation that gays will be more likely to molest their kids is an insidious lie. The real reason is because the cultural conservatives know they're losing on the issue of societal acceptance of homosexuality, and they view any adoption by a gay couple as one more lost warrior for their cause. It's not about protecting children, it's about protecting their stodgy belief system against the ever-growing consensus that there's nothing at all wrong with gay people.